日元套利交易，经济衰退概率上升，巴菲特现金储备，谷歌被裁定垄断，哈里斯选择沃尔兹

抱歉各位，我上周没来。那么你的出价是多少，杰克？我会加入你的出价。不。

Sorry, everybody. I wasn't here last week. So what's your bid, Jake? I'll jump into your bid. No.

没有出价。我只是，你知道，打了三针疫苗。我服用了帕克斯洛维德，现在回来了，各位。我知道大家都很关心我，谢谢大家。但我可以摘下口罩了。

There's no bid. I'm just I'm, you know, triple vaxxed. I took the Paxlovid, and I'm back, everybody. I know everybody was very concerned about me, and thank you to everybody. But I can take my mask off.

对吧，罗伯特？2024年我还需要戴口罩吗？

Right, Robert? Do I need a mask in 2024?

你没问题了。你已经安全了。

You're good. You're clear.

好的。让我摘掉一个。让我戴上那个。好了。谁开始觉得不自在了？

Okay. So let me take one of these off. Let me get that on. Okay. Who's getting uncomfortable?

你是第一个被剪辑的。好吧。知道吗？我要摘下第三个口罩。完全自由了。

You're the clip for one. Okay. You know what? I'll take the third mask off. Totally free.

不。无需口罩。希望我不会传染给你们

No. Mask free. Hope I don't get you guys in

后面

the back

我们现在可以把新冠当流感对待了。

the we can treat COVID like the flu now.

我是说，确实

I mean Did

你看到了吗？他们终于承认了，在关闭学校、经济等一切两年之后。就像，哦，这不过是流感。我们把它当流感对待。

you see that? They finally admitted after two years of shutting down schools, the economy, everything. Like, oh, it's just the flu. We treat like the flu.

嗯，这很有趣。你知道，我得了新冠。跟大家解释一下，我和我女儿去看了比利·乔尔的最后一场演唱会。我们玩得很开心。那是他在麦迪逊广场花园的最后一场。

Well, it's interesting. You know, I got the COVID. Just to explain to everybody, I went to Billy Joel's final concert with my daughter. She we had a great time. It was his final MSG.

尼克，把这段结尾的时间戳记一下，这样大家可以直接跳到结尾…抱歉。请继续，杰森。

Nick, timestamp the end of it so everybody can just skip to the end of the go sorry. Go ahead, Jason.

这里没什么特别的。我只是想说…我在告诉大家，我觉得我是在最后一场比利·乔尔演唱会上感染了新冠。那是一场很棒的演出。向比利·乔尔致敬。但那48小时非常难受，然后我服用了帕克斯洛维德，很快就恢复了。

There's no bit here. I'm just saying I I'm letting people know that I think I got COVID at the last Billy Joel show. It was a great show. Shout out, Billy Joel. But it was forty eight hours that were very intense, and then I took that Paxlovid, and I came right out of it.

但还是要向大家道歉。不过，说真的，那可不是开玩笑的。K，一个很棒的故事。很棒的故事。

But so apologies to everybody. But, man, it was no joke. K. A great story. Great story.

很棒的故事。

Great story.

嗯，我的意思是，听着。自从我今天早些时候以来发生了很多事情。你们

Well, I mean, listen. A lot has happened since I've been earlier today. Did you guys

哦，天哪。

Oh my god.

是啊。奥运会发生了。不知道。你们有关注奥运会吗？弗莱堡，你看起来像是会看冷门奥运项目的人。

Yeah. The Olympics happened. Don't know. You guys taken the Olympics at all? Freiburg, you seem like a guy who would watch obscure Olympic sports.

我觉得有很多运动应该成为常规项目。就像那个手枪射击的家伙。

I think there's a lot of sports that should be regular. It's like the pistol shooting guy.

总之，这一切都无关紧要了，因为你知道，狗仔队在那里，他们拍了照片，Chamop。你知道巴黎这里有个大狗仔队吗？因为那里有很多名人。

Anyway, it's all moot because, you know, the paparazzi were there, and they took poke pictures, Chamop. Do you know this big paparazzi in Paris here because of all the celebrities there?

是啊。欧洲到处都是狗仔队。他们无处不在。

Yeah. The paps are all over the place in Europe. They're everywhere.

他们无处不在。我相信你在意大利也见过他们。这，这太疯狂了。但是，他们拍到了你拿金牌的时候。尼克，调出来看看。

They're everywhere. I'm sure you saw them in Italy. It's, it's getting crazy. But, they got you when you were getting your gold medal. Nick, pull it up.

这个，我想是在《美国周刊》上。就是这个。这是查马斯拿金牌的照片。好吧。哎呀。

This is this was, I think, in US Weekly. Here it is. Here it Here's Chamath getting his gold medal. Okay. Oops.

哇哦。现在这个，这个属于，最大混蛋的范畴。让大家知道一下，查马斯有...他在那儿。他就是最大的混蛋。顺便说一句，其他人也在场。

Woah. Now this this is in the, category of, being the biggest prick. Now just let let people know, Chamath has There he is. He's the biggest prick. Other people were there too, by the way.

不只是查马斯。弗赖伯格也在那儿。这是弗赖伯格。是啊。最可能和女孩打架的人。

Wasn't it wasn't just Chamath. Freiberg was also there. Here's here's Freiberg. Yeah. Most likely to fight a girl.

是啊。就是这个。他当时在

Yeah. There it is. He was in the

我是那个叙利亚人吗？是的。

Am I the Syrian? Yes.

她在女子拳击项目中。

That she in the that she in the women's category of boxing.

拳击？好的。谢谢。

Boxing? Right. Thank you.

是的。谢谢，阿尔及利亚人。

Yeah. Thanks, Algerian.

谢谢你，J. Cal。

Thank you, J. Cal.

顺便说一下，Sax也在那里。他来了。他在奥运会上获得了最差身材的银牌。干得好，Sax。看看那个。

Sax was there too, though, by the way. Here he is. He he won silver for the least Olympic body. Well done, Sax. Look at that.

看看那苍白的肤色。我觉得你的金牌被抢走了。Sax，你被抢劫了。加油，Sax。看看那姿势。

The least look at that pasty white. I think you got robbed of the gold. You got robbed of Sax. You go, Sax. Look at that form.

我喜欢那个家伙。

I like that guy.

是的。我认为至少像Ozempic和Wagovy这样的药物，你减掉了体重，但并没有增加任何肌肉线条。这是众所周知的事情，对吧？弗里德伯格，这是公认的。

Yeah. I think at the very least, the Ozempic and Wagovy, you lost the weight, but you didn't add any muscle definition. That's a known that's known. Right? Friedberg, it's known.

你失去了肌肉。对吧？没错。你没有，是的。脂肪和肌肉都减了。

You lose the muscle. Right? That's right. You didn't yeah. Fat and the muscle.

顺便说一下，我当时也在那里。我非常非常自豪地说，在照片冲线时刻，你可以看到我在那里。你们都知道这张照片。对吧？这是100米美德信号赛跑。

I was there too, by the way. And I'm very, very proud to say, in a photo finish, you can see me there. You guys know this one. Right? This is the 100 meter virtue signal.

所以你看那里，凯特·霍夫曼刚刚险胜我，而我就在保罗·格雷厄姆前面。所以我们进行了一场100米美德信号短跑比赛。真的很棒，非常棒。但也祝贺里德·霍夫曼上节目来和你辩论性别话题。

So you see there, Kate Hoffman just edged me out, and I'm right ahead of Paul Graham. So we virtue signaling 100 meter dash. It was pretty great. It's pretty great. But congrats to Reid Hoffman also coming on the pod to debate you sex.

在美德信号方面很难打败他们。

Hard to beat them in virtue signaling.

我知道。感觉很难。在这种情况下，我觉得保持清醒是个目标，你知道，考虑到竞争激烈。对吧？只要你混进那群美德信号者中，你就很好了。

I know. Felt like hard. I felt like sober in this case was a goal, you know, given the competition. Right? You can just if you meddle in that group of virtue signals, you're good.

好了，各位。欢迎回到All In播客。当然是世界排名第一的播客。我回来了。老爸回家了，我们有很多议程要讨论。

Alright, everybody. Welcome back to the All In podcast. Of course, the number one podcast in the world. And I'm back. Daddy's home, and we've got a very full docket.

萨克斯会在最后为评论区所有MAGA狂热分子奉上他的红肉大餐。别担心。他会得到他的红肉，但我们在市场上有更大的鱼要炸。周一股市因所谓的日元套利交易而大幅下跌。道指下跌了700点。

Sax will get his red meat at the end for all the MAGA lunatics in the comments. Don't worry. He's gonna get his red meat, but we got bigger fish to fry in the markets. Markets were down big on Monday due to something called the yen carry trade. The Dow was down 700 points.

纳斯达克下跌了大约6%。这令人不安。周日晚上社交媒体疯传这将是世界末日，衰退的开始，甚至可能是大萧条。而这一切的发生只是因为日本央行将利率大幅提高了15到25个基点。我们稍后会解释为什么这很重要。

Nasdaq was down, like, 6%. It was unsettling. Social media went crazy on Sunday night that it was gonna be the end of the world, the beginning of a recession, maybe a depression. And this all happened because Japan Central Bank raised their interest rates by a whopping 15 to 25 basis points. And we'll explain why that's important in just a moment.

我们会让查莫普给我们简要概述一下日元套利交易。但这是一件大事，因为日本自1999年以来一直将其利率维持在接近零甚至负值。所以图表上的这个小波动就是，你知道的，日本利率上升了。简单解释一下，然后希马斯会让你深入了解。日元套利交易是一个相当基本的概念。

We'll get Chamop to give us a little overview here of the yen carry trade. But this is a big deal because Japan has had its interest rates at near zero or even negative since 1999. So this little blip on the chart is, you know, the interest rate going up, you know, there in Japan. So quick explainer, and then Shimath will have you go deeper. The yen carry trade is a pretty basic concept.

由于这个0%的利率，投资者以0%或接近0%的利息借款。然后你将你的日元兑换成另一种货币，或者像英伟达这样的股票，并赚取利差。所以，你知道，目标显然是获得比借入日元的成本更高的回报率。这里有一个例子。如果你只想看资金流向，你以0%的利率借入一些日元。

Investors borrow at 0% interest or close to it due to this 0% interest rate. And then you convert your yen into another currency or perhaps a stock like Nvidia, and you take the spread. So, you know, the goal is obviously to return a higher rate than the cost of borrowing the yen. And so here's an example of it. If you just wanna look at the flow, you borrow some yen at 0%.

你把它投资到股票或其他任何东西上。你获得一些升值，然后你清算股票，并偿还你的借款。当然，这一切都可能变得非常糟糕。

You invest it in stocks, whatever. You get some appreciation, and then you liquidate the stocks, and you pay back your bill. Of course, this could all go horribly.

是的。但一个更安全的方法就是投资于支付5%收益的美国国债。

Yeah. But a a safer way to do this is just to invest in a UST bill that's paying 5%.

你不必承担那个风险。是的。人们是

You don't have to take the risk. Yeah. People are

做空。

doing the down.

是的。所以你需要，比如借入

Yeah. So you have, like borrow

以0%的利率借入日元，投资于5%收益率的国债，然后赚取差价。

at you borrow yen at 0%, invest in T bills at 5%, and you pocket the difference.

没错。你只需要偿还贷款。当然，Chamath，如果发生一系列问题，这一切可能会变得非常糟糕。也许你可以给我们概述一下这种交易。你曾经做过类似的事情吗？

Yeah. And you just have to pay back the loan. Of course, Chamath, this can all go very wrong if a number of things happen. So maybe you could give us an overview of this kind of trade. Have you ever done something like this?

你怎么看待这类交易，这些所谓的'免费赚钱'交易，你知道的，就像从地上捡钱的那种交易？

What do you think of these type of trades, these, quote, unquote, free money trades, you know, picking up free money off the ground trades?

我的意思是，我认为这类交易...所以我从未做过。部分原因是我觉得这些事情看起来天才，它们一直有效直到某个时刻突然失效，而且失效得如此严重以至于几乎无法脱身。所以你很难平仓。是的，没错。

I mean, I think these kinds of so I've never done them. And part of the reason why is I think these things look genius, and they work until one moment in time where they stop working, and it stops working so severely that it becomes almost impossible to unwind yourself. And so you can unwinding. Yeah. Yeah.

是的。所以我通常认为，在这种情况下需要记住的是，你其实在这个交易中赚不到很多钱。赚大钱的方式是通过加杠杆来放大这个交易。也就是说，借入一百万日元然后换成美元再投资国债并不是真正能赚大钱的方式。你最多也就赚个5万美元左右。

Yeah. So I I think, typically, in situations, the thing you have to remember is you don't really make a lot of money in this trade. The way you make a lot of money is by leveraging this trade up. So meaning, it's not like borrowing a million dollars in yen and then swapping it to US dollars and then putting it in T bills is a real moneymaker. You're talking about 50 k.

那实际上不会产生太大影响。所以人们在这种情况下会尝试用10亿美元来做，然后将其杠杆放大5到10倍。问题在于，你需要向这些银行提供各种抵押品作为保证金来获得这种杠杆。因为这样一来，在100亿或150亿美元上获取150个基点，现在谈论的就是真金白银了。所以当这些情况出错且发生得非常突然时，它会对所有其他资产类别造成压力，因为人们都在争先恐后地确保自己不会被强制平仓。

That's not really gonna move the needle. So what people try to do in these situations is do it on a billion dollars and then lever it up five or 10 x. The problem with that is that you're posting all kinds of collateral as margin to these banks to give you that leverage. Because then all of a sudden, capturing a 150 basis points on 10,000,000,000 or 15,000,000,000, now we're talking about real money. And so when these things go wrong and they happen very suddenly, what it does is it puts pressure on all other asset classes because people are scrambling to make sure that they don't get margined out.

而你在周末看到的主要就是这种情况大量发生，很多这些人进行了这笔交易，规模达到数十亿甚至可能超过1000亿美元。

And what you saw over the weekend was it mostly a lot of that happening, which was a lot of these folks were putting this trade on to the tune of tens or probably even 100,000,000,000 plus dollars

哇。

Wow.

其中他们可能只有50到100亿美元的股本，而800到900亿美元纯粹是保证金。这就是导致这个非常快速的循环的原因。然后看起来它自己解开了，所以人们认为，哦，我们可能基本上已经过去了。实际上我认为还没有。我以前说过这个。

Of which they had maybe 5 or 10,000,000,000 of equity and 80 to $90,000,000,000 of just margin. And that's what caused this very quick cycle. Then it looked like it unraveled itself, and so people thought, oh, we're probably mostly past this. I actually think we're not. I've said this before.

我认为过去几年我在股市中学到的最有趣的事情之一是，股市很大程度上是由这些算法拥有的。对吧？意思是，有这些大型、模糊、灰暗的对冲基金，它们拥有这些计算机交易算法，这些算法被允许以大约500亿美元为基础进行13、15、20倍的杠杆。所以这些人每人都在操纵着万亿美元的资金。明白吗？

I think one of the most interesting things I've learned in the last few years about the stock market is the stock market is owned by and large by these algos. Right? Meaning, there's these large kind of murky grayish hedge funds that have these computer trading algorithms that are allowed to be levered to the tune of, you know, thirteen, fifteen, 20 times about $50,000,000,000. So these folks are swinging around a trillion dollars each. Okay?

我们都只是生活在他们的世界里，因为当这些算法做出决定并对这类事件做出反应时，真正的波动就开始了。所以我认为最重要的事情被我们在高盛的朋友总结了。尼克，如果你能把他们发给我的图片放上来。每当这类事情发生时，他们都会向一批客户发送一些非常好的市场见解。他们观察到的一个有趣的事情是几个事实。

And we all just live in their world because when these algorithms make a decision and they react to these kinds of events, that's when the real volatility starts. So I think the most important thing was summarized by friends of ours from Goldman Sachs. I just wanna, Nick, if you wanna just throw up the picture that they sent me. So they they sent they sent some really good market insights whenever these things kind of happen to a bunch of their clients. And one of the interesting things that they observed is a couple of facts.

首先是在所有这些混乱中，算法卖出了大约410亿美元的全球股票。好吧，没什么大不了的。只不过这实际上会导致其他所有人都不得不做出反应，然后他们又卖出了数十亿甚至更多。不过他们注意到的另一件事是，我们正处在一个可以预见这些算法在未来一个月将如何表现的时刻。

The first is the algorithms in the middle of all of this chaos sold about $41,000,000,000 of global equities. Okay. No big deal. Except that it actually causes everybody else to have to react, and then they sell billions and billions more. The other thing that they noticed, though, is that they're we're in a moment in time where you can see how these algorithms will behave over the next month.

而目前，如果波动性相对较小且变化不大，算法将不得不再卖出约1600亿美元的股票，这将引发其他所有人再抛售数千亿美元。所以我认为我们正处于一个微妙的时刻，市场行为的主要趋势将是继续抛售。而且我认为，当我们事后回顾时，这将是另一个证明在这些事情上加杠杆非常危险的原因。基本上，没有免费的钱。

And right now, if there's relatively minimal volatility and not much changes, the algorithms will have to sell another 160 odd billion dollars of equity, and that'll pull through many 100 billions more from everybody else. So I think we're in a little bit of a delicate moment where the preponderance of the market action will be to continue to sell. And I think it's just going to be, when we look back in hindsight, another reason why getting levered on these things is very dangerous. There's no free money, basically.

是的。在这场免费金钱的交易中并没有免费的钱。为了让不熟悉的观众更好地理解边际情况，简单解释一下：保证金就是一种贷款。是贷款的另一种花哨说法。保证金追缴，就是你有一些资产作为担保。

Yeah. There is no free money in this free money trade. And just to translate a little bit of this on the margins for the audience who's not familiar with it, margin is a loan. Fancy way of saying a loan. Margin call, you have some asset that backs it up.

明白吗？在普通人的情况下，可能是你的房子，或者你的银行账户等等。而在这些情况下，这些大公司和对冲基金可能有现金或股票。如果这些资产价值下跌，他们不得不偿还贷款，就被迫进行清算。

You know? In your case, it might be, you know, a civilian. It might be your house, whatever, your bank account. In these cases, these big companies and these hedge funds might have cash or equities. And if they come down and they have to pay the loan, they are forced to liquidate it.

在某些情况下，这些资产由贷款方控制，他们会开始程序化地出售你持有的任何股票——苹果、谷歌、英伟达等等——来偿还保证金。这就是所谓的保证金追缴，也是那部电影名字的由来。所以这是极其危险的。至于杠杆，像你我这样的普通人可以凭借他们价值200万美元的房子和房屋净值借到50万美元。

And in some cases, those assets are controlled by the person giving the loan, and they will just start programmatically selling your shares in whatever, Apple, Google, whatever, Nvidia you own you own. To pay down that margin. And this is called a margin call, thus the name of the movie. And so it's incredibly dangerous. And the leverage is you and I can or like any civilian could borrow, you know, $500,000 against their $2,000,000 house and home equity.

富人和这些大银行，他们可以借到资产价值10或20倍的资金，这可能会导致绝对的混乱。弗里德伯格，接下来请谈谈日本的情况，因为那里出现了一股购买股票的热潮，而人口却在下降。这是一个非常独特的经济体。也许你可以稍微谈谈这一点。

Rich people and these big banks, they can borrow 10 or 20 times the value of the assets, which then could lead to absolute chaos. Friedberg, let's go to you next and just talk a little bit about what's going on in Japan because they have had a rush of people buying their stocks, the population declining. It's a very unique economy. Maybe you could talk a little bit about it.

日本面临的最大挑战之一是他们累积的债务水平。他们的债务与GDP比率目前为263%。他们拥有约1.3千万亿日元的公共债务，而年度GDP约为591万亿日元。目前联邦层面每年支出约占GDP的20%，其中每年仅偿还现有债务的利息就占GDP的5%。

One of the biggest challenges facing Japan is the level of debt that they've accrued. Their debt to GDP ratio is currently 263%. They have about 1.3 quadrillion yen of public debt on an annual GDP of about 591,000,000,000,000 yen. They're currently at the federal level spending about 20% of GDP per year. 5% of GDP is being spent per year just on servicing the existing debt.

而这还是在央行设定的利率大约为0%的情况下。或者无论市场交易利率是多少，略高于0%。但如果央行因为通胀失控而不得不开始加息——由于流通中的日元过多，未偿债务巨大——联邦政府将无法实际偿还这些债务。截至2024年3月，日本央行实际上持有日本53%的未偿政府债券，相当于日本GDP的100%左右。所以他们的央行购买了联邦政府发行的债务来资助预算，其中很大一部分现在仅用于支付债务利息，而利率接近0%。

And that's at interest rates set by the central bank of roughly 0%. So you know, or whatever the market is trading it at, so slightly above 0%. But if the central bank had to start to raise rates because inflation started to run away because there's so much yen in circulation, there's so much debt outstanding, the federal government would not be able to actually service this debt. So as of March 2024, the Bank of Japan, the central bank, actually holds 53% of Japan's outstanding government bonds, which is equal to about a 100% of Japan's GDP. So their central bank has bought the debt that's being issued by the federal government to fund their budget, a large chunk of which right now is being spent just on paying the interest on the debt while interest rates are close to 0%.

所以想象一下，如果利率上升到1%、2%、3%、4%、5%，就像我们看到的美国国债那样——最近十年期国债利率曾接近5%——对日本政府来说，这将变成无法承受的债务负担。很大程度上这是由日本自90年代初以来面临的一系列危机驱动的。比如2008年的金融危机、核泄漏事故、几次地震和海啸，这些危机后国家承担了大量债务来支撑经济。但最重要的是，尼克，如果你能调出这张年龄图表，就是日本人口的老龄化问题。这张图表显示，你可以看到回溯到1950年，当时日本的平均年龄是21岁。

So imagine if interest rates bumped up to one, two, three, four, 5% as we're seeing with US treasuries, we recently had a nearly 5% handle on the on the ten year treasury, it would become an unsustainable debt burden for the Japanese government to be able to handle that. And a large part of this is being driven by a number of crises that Japan has faced since the early nineties. So there was the financial crisis in o eight, there was the nuclear meltdown, there was a couple of earthquakes, tsunamis, and a lot of debt has been taken on to support the country after those crises. But really importantly, and Nick, if you could just pull up this age chart, is the aging of the Japanese population. So this chart shows that and you can kinda see back to 1950 when the average age in Japan was 21 years old.

而今天，日本的平均年龄约为48岁。你知道，未来十年内会达到50岁，然后是52岁。这意味着越来越多的人依赖公共养老金。如今，他们政府支出的33%用于社会保障项目。相比之下，美国的社会保障约占联邦支出的20%。

And today, the average age in Japan is around 48. You know, in the next decade, they'll be 50, then they'll be 52. So that means more and more people are relying on public pension. Today, 33% of their government spending goes towards their Social Security programs. In The US, for comparison, Social Security is about 20% of federal spending.

所以这个数字只会越来越大。随着人口老龄化，日本政府必须继续照顾老年人口，并且不得不面对多次危机。他们的债务已膨胀到远超任何其他工业化国家的水平，经济上继续偿还这些债务的唯一方法就是保持低利率。而保持低利率的问题是什么？通货膨胀。

So that number is only getting bigger and bigger. As the population ages, the Japanese government has to continue to service their older population, and they've had to face several crises. Their debt has ballooned to a level that is well beyond any other industrialized nation, and the only way to continue to service that debt economically is to keep interest rates low. And the problem with keeping interest rate low? Inflation.

这正是促使他们决定将利率上调15或25个基点的最大驱动力，旨在应对他们面临的通胀问题，就像我们央行最近试图做的那样。但显然，市场无法接受。所以日本真的陷入了困境。我认为这显示了拥有大量联邦债务如何严重影响一个国家在困难时期调整自身的能力。而最终，债务总是要偿还的。

And that's the big driver that caused them to say, let's uptake the interest by 15 bips or 25 bips is to try and tackle the inflation problem they're facing just like our central bank recently tried to do the same. But clearly, the market can't have it. So Japan is in a real pickle. And I think that it shows how much having a large amount of federal debt can impact the ability for a nation to maneuver itself during difficult times. And ultimately, debt payments come due.

它们要么以经济收缩的形式到期，要么通过大幅增税或通货膨胀来偿还。而目前，日本正在通过通货膨胀来付出代价。

They come due either in the form of economic contraction or massive taxes or inflation. And currently, Japan is paying for it in terms of inflation.

抱歉，你是说日本有通货膨胀？日本根本没有通货膨胀。

Sorry. You're saying Japan has inflation? Japan has no inflation.

政府加息是为了应对通货膨胀。我会调出通胀图表。日本的通胀达到了四十年来的高点，这在过去18个月里急剧上升。年化通胀率接近4%。

The government raised rates to tackle inflation. I'll pull up the inflation chart. Japan's inflation hit a forty year high and this just shot up in the last eighteen months. Inflation is running at close to 4% a year.

所以他们在设定利率，弗里德伯格，在这个国家，并且他们持有债务。所以他们基本上是在控制或操纵经济，试图掌控它。对吗，弗里德伯格？

And so they're setting, Friedberg, the interest rate in the country, and they own the debt. So they're basically in control of or they're manipulating the economy and trying to control it. Correct, Friedberg?

嗯，他们的中央银行必须购买大部分债务，而他们的中央银行设定利率。所以他们持有大量债务，你知道，他们公共债务的53%是由他们的中央银行持有的。

Well, their central bank has to buy most of the debt, and their central bank sets the rates. So they have a large amount, you know, 53% of their federal of their public debt is held by their central bank.

如果他们不支付高利率，那么人们就不会购买未来的债券。如果他们提高利率，他们就必须支付那个利率。所以这就是困境，弗里德伯格，如果我要总结的话。

And if they don't pay a high interest rate, then people don't buy future bonds. If they do raise it, they have to pay that rate. So this is the conundrum, Friedberg, if I were to summarize it.

嗯，是的，虽然利率很低，但你看，特别是在我们今天面临的全球通胀市场中，他们需要提高利率以降低通胀。提高利率的问题在于这个，你知道，这个货币问题。

Well, yeah, while rates are low, you see this, you know, particularly in a market like we're facing today where there's global inflation, they need to raise rates in order to reduce inflation. The problem with raising rates is this this, you know, this currency problem.

但是购买债务，查马斯，你知道，如果票息上得不到任何回报，谁还会购买债务呢？对吧？这是他们在日本面临的另一个挑战。

But also buying the debt, Chamath, is you know, who's buying debt if they're you're not getting anything on the coupon. Correct? That's another challenge they face in Japan is that.

有一位经济学家西蒙·库兹涅茨说过一句名言，他说世界上有四种国家：发达国家、不发达国家、日本和阿根廷。我认为他这么说是因为日本自九十年代以来就一直处于这种状态。他们经历了巨大的房地产和股市泡沫破裂，但自那以后，他们从未不得不处理任何看起来像典型经济问题的事情。部分原因是因为政府在日本经济中扮演了非常重要的角色。

There's a famous quote from an economist, Simon Kuznet, who said there's four kinds of countries in the world. There's developed countries, undeveloped countries, Japan, and Argentina. And I think the reason he said that is that Japan has been in this state since the nineties. So they had a massive property and equity bubble collapse, and they've not had to deal with anything that looked like typical economic issues since then. And part of it is because the government plays a very big hand in the Japanese economy.

那里有很多价格控制。所以我不知道。我不确定我们能从那里学到什么可以推广到世界其他地方的东西。

There's a lot of price controls there. So I don't know. I'm not sure what it is that we can learn there that you can extrapolate to the rest of the world.

是的。这是一个非常独特的SACS地理和经济体系。那么，萨克斯，你对此的总体看法是什么？我们可以期待什么？也许你可以从未来展望和预测的角度来分析。请讲。

Yeah. It is a very unique SACS geography and economy. So, Sax, your thoughts on this overall and what we can expect? Maybe you could take the future looking, forward looking, and prediction crystal ball. Go ahead.

我认为弗里德伯格说得对，日本央行试图加息的原因——我的意思是，哪怕只是微调——是因为他们正在应对通货膨胀。如果你看那个通胀图表，回溯到2020年左右他们通胀率为零的时候，美元兑日元的汇率大约是1:100，意味着一美元可以兑换100日元。现在大约是150日元兑一美元。所以他们的货币在过去几年里大幅贬值。而主要原因之一再次是，他们的央行提供近乎零的利率，而你可以在美国国债上获得5%的收益。

So I think Friedberg is right that the reason why the Japanese Central Bank tried to raise rates, I mean, just by a tiny amount, was because they are dealing with inflation. If you look at that inflation chart and you go back to when their inflation was zero, roughly in 2020, the exchange ratio between the US dollar and the yen was about a 100 to one, meaning one US dollar could buy a 100 yen. Now it's at roughly a 150 yen to the dollar. So their currency has massively depreciated over the last several years. And a big part of the reason why is because again, their central bank is offering roughly zero and you can earn 5% in US T bills.

所以人们基本上是把资金转移到债券收益率更高的国家，他们甚至像我们讨论过的那样借入日元，卖出日元然后买入澳元或美元进行投资。因此，日元价值承受着巨大的下行压力。这种方式引发通胀的原因是，日本显然是一个岛屿国家，自然资源非常稀少，必须进口所有石油。所以它虽然是一个发达经济体，但需要进口大量资源。因此，随着其货币贬值，所有这些大宗商品的价格都会上涨，这就是你在日本看到通胀的原因。

So people are basically moving their money to countries that pay a lot more on their bonds, and they're even borrowing yen like we talked about, selling the yen to then buy Australian dollars or US dollars to invest money there. So there's huge downward pressure on the value of the yen. And the way this creates inflation is that Japan is a is obviously an island that has very few natural resources and has to import all of its oil. So it has an advanced economy, but it needs to import a lot of resources. And so as its currency depreciates, the price of all those commodities goes up, and this is why you're seeing inflation in Japan.

现在，当央行试图解决这个问题时，它在金融市场引起了巨大的不安，因为它开始解除整个日元套利交易，规模大约在20万亿美元。所以日本央行退缩了。你听到日本央行官员说，我们不能在可能引发全球市场不稳定的情况下加息。我们必须等到情况稳定。但问题是，加息和解除日元套利交易恰恰会造成这种不稳定。

Now when the central bank tried to solve this, it created huge jitters in the financial market because it was starting to unwind the whole yankari trade, which is something like $20,000,000,000,000. And so the the Bank of Japan backed off. And you heard the the Japanese central bankers said we can't raise rates while it would create instability in the global markets. We have to wait until it's stable. But the problem is that raising the rates and unwinding the yen carry trade creates the instability.

所以他们实际上是在说，我们永远无法加息。而这样做的结果将是日本出现更多的通货膨胀。他们的货币将继续贬值。你知道，他们一直未能捍卫其币值。因此，我预计美元将能兑换更多的日元。

So what they're saying is we're never gonna be able to raise rates. And the result of this is gonna be more inflation in Japan. Their currency is gonna continue to depreciate. You know, they've been unable to defend it. And so what I would expect is that US dollar is gonna keep buying more yen.

汇率可能会从，我不知道，147、150日元兑一美元继续上升到

It's gonna go from, I don't know, a 147, a 150 to

是1

is one

更大的数字，一些更大的数字。

bigger some bigger number.

这是它的一个巨大优势。萨克斯。

It's one huge upside to this. Sacks.

而最终为此付出代价的将是日本消费者，因为所有东西都会贵很多。

And who's gonna pay the price here is the Japanese consumer because everything's gonna cost a lot more.

是的。而且你知道，显然，当汇率达到1美元兑158日元时，这非常不寻常。我和塔克聊过，我们今年把新雪谷的滑雪旅行从四天延长到了七天，因为这实在太划算了。所以

Yeah. And that was, you know, obviously, when the when you get a 158 yen to the dollar, this is extraordinary. I was talking with Tucker, and we just took our Niseko ski trip this year from four days to seven because it is just such a great deal. So

这对旅游业是好事，因为去日本旅行会便宜得多。但如果你是日本人并且住在那里，你会看到自己的购买力持续下降。所以我预计日本国内会出现大问题，最终他们可能会认为这个体系对他们没有好处。那么谁受益了呢？你可以说美国受益了，因为它补贴了我们债务的购买，对吧？

It'll be good for tourism because, yeah, you'll be able to travel to Japan much more cheaply. But if you're if you're actually Japanese and you live in that country, you're gonna see your purchasing power continue to erode. So I would expect big domestic problems in Japan, and eventually they may conclude that this system does not benefit them. Now who does it benefit? You could argue that it benefits The United States because it has subsidized the purchase of our debt, right?

因为，再次强调，你有这2万亿日元的套利交易，其中很多都流入了美国债券或美国国库券，对吧？所以，没错。这基本上是对美国财政部需要不断发行更多债务的巨大补贴。我们每100天就要净增发多少，一万亿美元的新债务。所以让日本消费者通过承受通货膨胀的打击来补贴所有这些，以提供这种日元套利交易，你可以说这对美国财政部非常有利。

Because again, so so you have this yen carry trade of 20,000,000,000,000 and a lot of that has gone into US bonds or US T bills, right? So Right. It basically is a huge subsidy to the US Treasury's need to continuously issue more and more debt. We're issuing what, a trillion dollars of net new debt every 100. So having the Japanese consumer subsidize all of this by taking it on the chin, you know, in terms of inflation in order to provide this yen carry trade, you could argue has been very beneficial to the US treasury.

那么，沙莫斯，在某个时间点，你知道，你的债务占GDP的百分比，我们在这个节目上已经讨论过很多次了。你之前说过，嘿，我们可以有一点这个（债务），因为我们有非常强势的美元。那么当你观察日本时，这里是否有美国可以借鉴的教训，或者一些警告，告诉我们不应该过分追随他们的这条路？

And, Shammoth, at some point, you know, the percentage of your debt to GDP, you know, we've talked about it so much on this show. You've said previously, hey. You know, we can have a little bit of this because we're a very strong dollar. So when you look at Japan, is there some lesson here for The US or, you know, maybe some warning here that we we shouldn't necessarily follow them too far down this road?

不。好吧。

Nope. Okay.

继续印钱。明白了。好的。嗯，不知道。我

Keep printing money. Got it. Okay. Well, don't know. I

意思是，我我我倾向于同意弗赖伯格的观点，当你背负巨额债务时，这绝对会限制你的灵活性。

mean, I I I tend to agree with with Freiberg here that when you have massive amounts of debt, it definitely limits your flexibility.

这纯粹是算术问题。你要么通过经济收缩、提高税收，要么通过通货膨胀来为此买单。就这三个途径。

It's just arithmetic. You're gonna pay for it with either economic contraction, higher taxes or inflation. Those are the three places it goes.

是的。而且他们确实测试过。他们现在已经做了压力测试，对。

Yeah. And they and they did test it. They've stress tested now, yeah.

日本无法加息的原因之一是因为他们的债务会变得更加昂贵。对吧？我是说，免费的汉堡，这难道不是问题的一部分吗？

One of the reasons why Japan can't raise rates is because their debt will become even more expensive. Right? I mean, free burgers, isn't that part of the problem?

是的，完全正确。然后他们的联邦支出会受到挤压，因为现在他们必须偿还那笔债务。再说一次，他们已经在用低利率将联邦预算的25%用于偿还现有债务，而且他们还得支撑一个老龄化的人口。

Yeah, that's exactly right. And then their federal spending gets compressed because now they have to service that debt. Again, they're already spending 25% of their federal budget on servicing existing debt with the low interest rates and they've gotta support an aging population.

好的。那么类比到美国，我们的债务偿还成本现在是多少？好像，已经远超一万亿美元了吧？

Okay. So so to analogize this to The US, our our debt service costs are what what are they at now? Like, well over a trillion?

我们每年大约是一万亿美元，而拟议的预算是7.3万亿美元，所以我们的占比是13.6%，而日本是25%以上。

We're about a trillion a year with a proposed 7,300,000,000,000.0 budget, so we're at 13.6% and Japan is And also, at 25 over

未来十年，我们的债务偿还不是预计会上升到

next ten years, isn't our debt service supposed to rise to

是的，随着所有低息债券到期，我们以更高利率发行新债，我们的债务偿还成本将继续攀升。它已经超过了一万亿美元一年，比可自由支配的军费开支还要高。

Yeah, as the all low interest bonds mature and we issue new debt at a higher interest rate, our debt service cost is gonna continue to climb. It's already higher than discretionary military spending at over a trillion a year.

嗯，只要买比特币，等它涨到一枚一百万美元，我们就能全部还清债务，问题就解决了。

Well, just buy Bitcoin and when it goes to a million dollars a coin, we can just pay it all down, so problem solved.

还有一点，我认为这显示了全球金融体系的脆弱性。我的意思是，市场迅速反弹了。一旦日本银行退缩，基本上投降了，说好吧，我们无法捍卫我们的货币。我们就让它继续贬值吧。

Just one other point is I think it shows the fragility of the global financial system. I mean, the market snapped back. As soon as the the Bank of Japan backed off, basically capitulated, said okay, fine, we can't can't defend our currency. We're just gonna let it Yeah. Keep depreciating.

我们将让通胀继续肆虐。他们一宣布这一点，市场就立刻反弹了。但这恰恰显示了在那24小时内，抛开社交媒体上所有过度恐慌的言论（我认为那太夸张了），全球经济是多么脆弱。日元套利交易已向全球经济注入了大约20万亿美元的流动性，这支撑了各种各样的事物，对吧？而且这也在补贴美国政府的债务。

We're gonna let inflation keep raging. As soon as they declared that, then the market snapped back. But it just showed in that twenty four hours, putting aside like all the panic porn that was on social media, because I think that was overdone, it still showed how fragile the global economy is. The the yen carry trade has injected roughly $20,000,000,000,000 of liquidity into the global economy and that is propping up all sorts of things, right? And that is subsidizing US Government debt.

你就在想，如果日元套利交易结束——比如说因为日本人不愿经历恶性通货膨胀——那对全球经济会造成什么影响？这恰恰显示了整个体系有多么摇摇欲坠。

And you just wonder if the yen carry trade were to end because let's say for example the Japanese people don't want to experience hyperinflation, then what would that do to the global economy? It just showed how rickety the whole system is.

我认为这显示了体系内存在多大的杠杆。

I think it shows how much leverage there is in the system.

完全正确。就是这么回事。一切都是杠杆的问题。

Totally. That's what it is. It's all about leverage.

好的。沙玛，我们稍微谈谈杠杆吧。

Okay. Let's talk about leverage for a second, Shama.

杠杆叠加杠杆再叠加杠杆。

Leverage on leverage on leverage.

举个例子，像Citadel这样管理着约500亿美元资产的机构，拥有极其精准的风险管理系统。他们是行业中的佼佼者。但正因如此，他们对金融机器的正常运转具有系统重要性，以至于经过审查并证明其风险管理非常出色后，他们被允许将杠杆放大到惊人水平，你知道，15倍、16倍甚至17倍。所以我认为，Citadel用投资者给的500亿美元资本，很可能每天在市场上运作着万亿规模的资金。文艺复兴科技公司也是同样的情况。

So for example, like, if you take something like Citadel runs about $50,000,000,000, and they have extremely precise risk management systems. They're the best in the business. But as a result of that, they are so systematically important to make the financial machinery run properly that as they're inspected and as they prove that they have very good risk management, they're allowed to lever up to incredible levels, you know, fifteen, sixteen, 17 times. So I think that Citadel with the 50,000,000,000 of capital that investors have given them is probably running a trillion dollars on a daily basis in the markets. Renaissance Technologies, same situation.

千禧年基金，同样的情况。那些设在大银行内部的一批基金，同样的情况。所以当你把所有加起来时，你很可能在谈论几万亿美元的名义资本被极度杠杆化。正如萨克斯所说，正是这造成了那种感觉，即事情

Millennium, same situation. A bunch of these funds that sit inside of the large banks, same situation. So when you add it all up, you're probably talking about a few $100,000,000,000 of notional capital that's enormously levered. That's what causes the that sensation, as Sax said, that things are

那么我们应该对此加强监管还是加强审查呢，Chamath？你之前在我们讨论一些对冲基金倒闭时就谈过这个问题，我们当时提到可能需要一些监管措施。是的。

So should we have more increased regulation or increased scrutiny on this, Chamath? You've talked about it before when we had some of these hedge funds flip, and we talked about maybe some regulation. Yeah.

我们对银行有很多监管。本质上，在经历了金融危机的所有混乱之后，我们没说的是：我们实际上仍在运行相同甚至更多的风险，只是将其移到了表外。这样银行就能构建业务线与这些对冲基金合作。而这些对冲基金随着时间的推移证明了自己管理如此严密，不会发生黑天鹅事件，因此可以高杠杆运作。

We have a lot of regulation on banks. Essentially, what happened is after all of the chaos of the great financial crisis, the thing that we don't talk about is what we really did was keep running the same, if not more risk. We just took it off balance sheet. So the banks were able to structure business lines to work with these hedge funds. And these hedge funds, in turn, were able to show over time that they're so tightly managed that there are no black swan events that could happen, that they can run highly levered.

所以我认为我们正处于这样一个时刻：时不时会出现这些裂痕。比如这个Bill Huang事件就是一个例子。套息交易是另一个例子。每年都会出现几次这样的案例，但总有一天，这些人会承担过多风险。

So I think we are in this moment where there'll be these fissures from time to time. So here's this Bill Huang. That's an example. The carry trade is another example. There there have been examples a couple times a year, but at some point, these folks will have taken too much risk.

到时候我们回顾起来，会认为对冲基金或许应该受到比现在更严格的监管——是针对它们的杠杆比率，而不是投资策略。

And we'll look back on it, and we'll think that hedge funds should probably have been more regulated than they are with respect to their leverage ratios, not with respect to their strategies.

就这笔特定交易而言，摩根大通昨天或几小时前表示，他们认为约75%的日元套息交易现已平仓，而一天多前这个比例还是50%。看来市场已经在逐步平仓这些交易，我们基本上已经处于这次特定活动杠杆影响的尾声。所以我放了链接

With this particular trade, JPMorgan yesterday or a few hours ago said that they think about 75% of the yen carry trades have now been unwound, and it was at 50% a little over a day ago. So the market has moved to kind of unwind these trades, it seems, and we're pretty much at the end of the levered fallout of this particular activity. So I put the link

这是来自彭博社的。要明白当我们进入金融市场的下一阶段时，所有那些人都必须平仓这些交易，这意味着他们都需要在买入日元或平仓日元的同时出售资产，这就是导致市场出现剧烈混乱的原因——你看到纳斯达克下跌了6%，或者在有些情况下，可能有人想趁势获利了结，毕竟市场情况...

here from the Bloomberg. Understand when we move on to the to the to the next phase of the financial markets. All of those people have to cover those trades, which means they all have to sell assets at the same time as buying yen or covering the yen, and that's what causes this acute chaos in the markets where you saw the Nasdaq go down 6% or, in some cases, maybe people wanted to take some chips off the table since things were Yeah.

但他们肯定会重新建仓。事实上，现在甚至是更好的建仓时机，因为日本央行基本上已经投降，表示在局势如此不稳定时无法加息。所以我们知道他们会维持利率不变。如果我是这些交易员，我现在就会重新建仓。

But there's gonna put that trade back on. In fact, now's even better time to put that trade on because the Bank of Japan's basically just capitulated and said that they can't raise interest rates while things are so unstable. So we know they're just gonna keep rates where they are. So if I was one of these traders, I'd just put the trade back on now.

好的。那么我们来谈谈在美国的着陆情况。现在让我们聚焦美国。看起来可能是一次颠簸着陆而非软着陆，正如人们可能怀疑的那样，也正如我们之前讨论过的，我们认为这可能是从颠簸到软着陆的过程。七月份的就业报告相当糟糕，从某些角度看，考虑到通胀问题，这反而是好事。

Alright. So let's talk about the landing here in The US. Let's get US centric now. And it looks like maybe it's gonna be a bumpy landing rather than a soft landing, as one might suspect and as we talked about here that we think this could be bumpy to soft. July's job reports was, pretty bad, which is good in some ways when you're thinking about inflation.

新增就业岗位大幅下降，七月份仅增长了11.4万个。过去一年中，许多这类预估数据都被下调了，我们需要注意这一点。这个数字低于道琼斯预估的18.5万。这是对应的图表，可以看到自美联储开始加息以来，数据持续走低，而且从你朋友们的经历中也能听到类似的情况。

So the new jobs added were way down, and growing a 114,000 here in July. And a bunch of these estimates have been reported downward, over the past year, just so we'd make a note of that. And this was below the Dow Jones estimate of a 185,000. There's your chart. It just keeps ticking down, you know, since the Fed started hiking rates, and you hear anecdotally about all of your friends.

根据最新调查，目前88%的千禧一代实际上正在为被裁员做准备。短期内的失业率大幅上升，七月份达到了4.3%，这是自2021年10月以来的最高水平，上个月是4.1%，而去年七月是3.5%。所以从去年七月到现在，这个变化相当显著。

88% of millennials right now are actually preparing to be laid off according to a recent survey. Unemployment is way up in the short term here. We're at 4.3% in July. That's the highest since October 2021, up from 4.1 last month and 3.5% in July. So you take that July number to now.

这是就业情况的图表。显然，从历史角度看还算低，但正在快速上升，这正是加息预期中的结果。我们曾有过小时收入增长的美好时刻，即人均每小时收入在增加，我认为这在很大程度上推动了经济中的消费者热情。

It's pretty significant. Here's your chart on the jobs. Obviously, historically, it's low, but it's ticking up pretty quickly, which is what you would expect with the rate hikes. And we had this great moment of hourly earnings growth going up, so how much people make on average per hour was going up. And and I think that was causing a a decent amount of the consumer enthusiasm in the economy.

看这里，它已经从近6%大幅下降到3.5%。这意味着美联储降息即将到来。这是预测市场对今年美联储降息幅度的概率图表，看起来75到100个基点是主流预期。

Here it is. It's coming way down from almost six percent down to three and a half. And so that means Fed rate cuts are coming. Here's your chart from a prediction market of the chances of how much the Fed cuts rates this year. Looks like 75 to a 100 basis points is the majority.

约60%的人认为会是这两个数字之一。我先说到这里，还有很多可以讨论的内容，我们会深入具体公司和纳斯达克。Pat，在把话题交给你之前，Chamath，让我展示最后这张图表。今年市场表现强劲。

About 60% of people believe it'll be one of those two numbers. I'll stop there. There's a lot more to talk about here, and we'll get into specific companies and the Nasdaq. Pat, let me pull up this last chart before I go to you, Chamath. It's been a strong year for the market.

截至周四上午，标普和纳斯达克年初至今均上涨11%，但显然出现了大幅——我们该称之为回调吗？当跌幅达到20%就进入回调区域了，Chamath。那么你对更广泛的美国市场和这次抛售有什么看法？

S and P and Nasdaq both up 11% year to date as of Thursday morning, but obviously a massive, I guess do we call it a correction when it's yeah. 20% is correction territory, Chamov. So your thoughts on the wider US market and the sell off.

我认为我们正处于一场低调的衰退中。所以我认为我们可能会经历几次非常困难的对旧数据的修订。关于非农就业数据，要记住的不仅是数字本身，更重要的是它随后被修订的次数。现实情况是这些数据一直在不断修订。而现在我们正处于高估后向下修正的趋势中。

I think we're in a low key recession. So I think that we're gonna probably go through a couple of very difficult revisions of old data. The thing to remember about nonfarm payrolls isn't as much what the number is. But if you actually look to the number of times it then gets revised, the reality is that these things get revised constantly. And right now, we're in this trend where we are overestimating and revising down.

高盛提到过这一点，GDP的情况也是如此。所以我认为我们正处于一个艰难的处境。然后你看到的是，经营强周期性业务的人们用非常直白的英语告诉我们需求不存在。上周有个有趣的例子，杰森，你提到了千禧一代，但是像爱彼迎这样的公司，你以为所有年轻人都在到处挥霍他们拥有的现金，但爱彼迎却发出了重大的需求警告。

Sachs mentioned this, that that was the same with GDP. So we are, I think, in a tough situation. And then what you're seeing is folks that run very cyclical businesses are telling us in very plain spoken English that demand isn't there. So the one that was interesting this past week, Jason, you mentioned millennials, but, like, Airbnb, where you think all these young people are running around yoloing what whatever cash they have. Airbnb had a massive warning on demand.

所以我认为，当过剩资本——无论是刺激支票还是其他什么——已经耗尽时，你现在开始看到这种情况在这些周期性业务中显现出来。我认为需求并不存在。我认为我们正处于衰退中。这可能在三季度和四季度变得更加明显。所以鲍威尔将不得不降息。

So when I think the excess capital, whether it's the stimmy check or what have you, has been exhausted, you're now starting to see it bear out in these cyclical businesses. I don't think the demand is there. I think we're in a recession. It probably becomes more obvious in q three and q four. And so Powell's going to have to cut.

问题在于，他是否会过度反应于压力，降息75到100个基点而不是25个基点并采取缓慢行动？

The question is, will he overreact to the pressure and cut 75 to a 100 versus 25 and take it slow?

好的。弗瑞伯格，技术上的衰退定义是连续两个季度GDP负增长。我们还没有出现这种情况，但我们正在这种可能性边缘徘徊。衰退已经注定会发生吗？还是如果他们按照预测市场预测的程度降息并且他们正在发出信号，你认为我们会有良好的反弹？

Okay. Freeberg, technical definition of a recession is two quarters in a row of negative GDP. We haven't had that, but we're sort of bouncing along that possibility. Is the recession baked in? Or if they cut rates at the extent the prediction markets are predicting and they're signaling, do you think we have a nice rebound?

你对美国整体经济感觉如何？

How do you feel about the overall US economy?

显然，你必须考虑通货膨胀和政府支出。政府支出在多大程度上推动经济增长？如今，美国提议明年在25万亿美元GDP中支出7.3万亿美元。所以美国联邦政府大约占GDP的30%，而且我们显然仍在应对通货膨胀。真正的问题是，经济中有多少增长是因为经济领域中人们制造和做事的生产率提升，而不是政府利用其征税和借贷能力，通过膨胀数字、将收入推给企业、将资本注入市场、利用其借贷能力和征税能力在市场中创造杠杆交易来推动经济增长。

Obviously, you have to account for inflation and government spending. How much of government spending is driving economic growth? Today, The US is proposing to spend $7,300,000,000,000 next year out of $25,000,000,000,000 GDP. So the US federal government is roughly 30% of GDP and we obviously still are tackling inflation. The real question is how much of the economy is growing because of productivity gains in the sector of the economy where people are making things and doing things versus the government using its ability to tax and borrow to drive growth in the economy by inflating numbers, by pushing revenue onto businesses, by pushing capital into the markets, by creating levered trades in the markets using their borrowing capacity and their taxing capacity.

这就是我仍然担忧的事情。我上周提到过，我对当前许多经济部门面临的严峻挑战仍然高度关注，特别是工业部门、制造业部门、农业部门。但对于服务和软件部门，你可以提高价格，拥有高利润率的业务，可以继续增长并表现良好。但全球经济和美国经济中有很多部分目前确实面临相当大的挑战。

So that's the thing I remain concerned about. I mentioned this last week, I remain highly concerned about many sectors of the economy that are deeply challenged right now, particularly the industrial sectors, manufacturing sectors, the agricultural sectors, but services and software sectors where you can raise prices and you have a nice high margin business, you can continue to to grow and and look good. But there are many parts of the the global economy and The US economy that are pretty challenged right now.

Sacks，我们来谈谈这种软着陆到颠簸着陆的情况。低端消费者肯定在走弱。Airbnb和亚马逊就是人们寻找优惠、寻求折扣、想通过这些服务省钱的例子。而像Uber和一些高端零售商这样价格更高的高端服务实际上在增长，他们说消费者很强劲。所以这个财报季就像是双城记，高端群体说高端消费者强劲，低端消费者疲软。

Sacks, let's talk about this soft to bumpy landing. Consumers are definitely weakening on the low end. Airbnb and Amazon are example of bargain hunting, people who are looking for discounts, who wanna save money with those services. Higher end services that have a bigger price tag like Uber and some of the high end retailers are showing actual growth, and they're saying the consumer's strong. So it was a tale of two cities during this earnings season with a bunch of the high end folks saying strong consumers on the high end, weak consumers on the low end.

我们陷入衰退的可能性有多大？第二个问题是，Elon最近上了Lex Friedman的节目，我想是八天左右，创下了播客时长记录。但他谈到的一件事是，他曾与特朗普讨论过，Vivek在我们的播客和其他场合也一直强烈主张这一点。

What are the chances we go into a recession? And, you know, second question for you. Elon was recently on Lex Friedman for, I think, eight days or something. It was like a record podcast of how long he was on. But one of the things he talked about was that he had discussed with Trump, and Vivek has been very strong about this on our podcast and other places.

他曾是主要的副总统候选人，主张提高政府效率并大幅削减开支，但这会引起反弹。那么潜在的共和党政府是否有大规模削减成本的平台？你认为现在作为任何一方的总统候选人公布这样的计划是否可能太不受欢迎？

And he was a leading VP candidate of making the government more efficient and radically cutting the amount of spending, but there would be a reaction. So does the potential GOP administration have a platform to cut costs massively or not? And do you think that, you know, that would have been maybe too unpopular to to sort of unveil that plan now as a as a presidential candidate in either party?

我认为他们没有具体的计划，因为我觉得你需要国会超级多数才能做这样的事情。而且我认为这次选举无论谁赢都会太接近，无法提供那种授权。遗憾的是，我认为我们确实需要控制政府支出，但我觉得这是个长期的政治问题，我们的政治体系没有意愿去解决它。我相信共和党在这方面会比民主党做得更好，但这就是现实。回到你关于经济状况的第一个问题，昨天我和一位非常知名的投资者共进午餐，他与对冲基金界联系紧密，他说情绪转变非常突然，在对冲基金、专业投资者、公开市场投资者中，人们现在非常担心衰退风险。

I don't think they have that plan specifically because I just think that you would need you would need a super majority in congress to do something like that. And I just think that this election's gonna be too close regardless of who wins to provide that kind of mandate. I mean, sadly, I think we do need to get government spending under control, but I think it's a long term political problem, and I just think our political system doesn't have the will to fix it. I I do believe Republicans would be better than Democrats on that, but I think that's the truth of it. To go back to your first question on the state of the economy, I had lunch with a very prominent investor yesterday who's very plugged in with the hedge fund community, And he said that the sentiment shift, you know, I'd say, again, within hedge funds, professional investors, public market investors, had been very sudden, that people were now very worried about the risk of a recession.

我认为Shmaz提到的Airbnb收入是一个重要因素。Airbnb股票一天内因需求疲软下跌了15%。推动这一切的是消费者疲软，或者至少是对消费者疲软的担忧。你提到了失业率上升，月环比从4.1%升至4.3%。

And and I do think that the Airbnb revenue that Shmaz cited is a big factor. Airbnb stock went down 15% in in one day on soft demand. And what's driving all this is is consumer weakness, or at least fear of consumer weakness. You mentioned the rise in unemployment. It went from 4.1 to 4.3% month over month.

4.3%按历史标准来看仍然是一个相当低的数字，但一个月内跳升这么多，这是一个相当大的增长。当然，这比一年前的3.5%有所上升。所以我们看到失业率出现了相当大的增长。

So 4.3 is still a pretty low number by historical terms, but to jump so much in one month, that's a pretty big increase. And then of course, it's up from 3.5% a year ago. So we're seeing pretty big increases in unemployment.

年同比增长5%，环比增长非常显著。是的。

Year over year, 5% month over month is very significant. Yeah.

所以这些都是重大变化。有真实证据表明消费者疲软，我认为专业投资者对经济衰退的风险越来越担忧。最后一点是，如果剔除政府支出的影响，很明显私营部门已陷入衰退。就像我们一直在讨论的，政府一直在疯狂支出。政府赤字占GDP的6%。

So these are big changes. There's real evidence of of consumer weakness, and I think professional investors are are getting quite worried about the risk of a recession. And I guess just one last point on this is that if you were to remove the impact of government spending, it's pretty clear the private sector is in a recession. I mean, like we've been talking about, government's been going hog wild with spending. We have the government is running 6% of GDP deficits.

最新的第二季度增长率约为2%。如果强制政府量入为出并削减开支以达到平衡，我们肯定会陷入衰退，出现负增长。因此我确实认为经济突然显得相当不稳定。未来几个月是否会真正陷入衰退，我不确定。

The the latest q two growth number was something like 2%. So if you force government to live within its means and to cut its way back to balance, we would definitely be in a recession. We'd have a negative growth rate. So I do think that the economy is looking pretty shaky all of a sudden. Whether we actually tip over into recession in the next few months, I'm I'm not sure.

好吧。听着，我想用一个问题把大家都难住。你们必须回答这个问题。在All In播客上，你们不能回避难题。

Alright. Well, listen. I wanna corner everybody here with a question. You gotta answer the question. You you can't avoid the hard questions here on the All In podcast.

Chamath，一年后的现在，市场上涨，还是我们经历定义为连续两个季度GDP负增长的衰退？哪种情况更可能？市场上涨还是衰退？给个百分比，或者就说哪个更可能？Freiburg，下一个

Chamath, sitting here a year from now, market up, or we experience a recession defined as two quarters of negative GDP. Which one is the more likely scenario? Mark it up or a recession? Give it a percentage, or just which is more likely? Freiburg, your next

嗯，这两者并不对立。你说一年后？老实说，我不知道。

Well, those are not those are not opposing things. So you're saying a year from now? I don't I don't honestly know.

好的。

K.

但我确实认为我们很可能会进入技术性衰退。

But I do think that we'll probably be in a technical recession.

好的。所以你倾向于认为未来一年会出现衰退，而非没有衰退。

Okay. So you lean towards I'll just go recession, no recession in the next year.

但我也认为市场上涨的可能性相当大。

But I also think that there's a pretty decent chance the market will be up.

啊，明白了。好的。所以可能出现经济衰退，但市场却上涨。要解读这一点，我同意你的预测，因为我认为人们已经沉迷于效率。他们会裁员，而随着这些公司管理得越来越好，盈利会持续飙升。

Ah, got it. Okay. So we could have a recession, but the market goes up. So to unpack that, I am with you on that same prediction because I do think people are addicted to efficiency. They're gonna lay people off and earnings are gonna keep ripping as these companies become managed so well.

那只是经济的一小部分，杰伊·卡尔。那只是几家科技公司。但许多制造业、工业部门、农业市场等，有很多市场你没有选择仅仅裁减知识工作者。知识工作者经济、软件经济有能力这样做，科技经济可以做到，但经济的其他大部分部分没有像我们这样在高增长、高利润行业中的机动性。

That's a small percentage of the economy, Jay Cal. That's a few tech companies. But much of the manufacturing sector, the industrial sector, the ag markets, like, there's a lot of markets where you don't have this option to just cut knowledge workers. The knowledge worker economy, the software economy has the ability to do that, the tech economy can do that, but much of the rest of the economy doesn't have a lot of maneuverability like we do in this fast growing high margin kind of industry we work in.

我认为你说得有道理，但我确实看到麦当劳、星巴克和一些消费品零售商正在采取措施调整业务规模，提供5美元套餐或3美元咖啡。所以我确实认为他们在管理这些公司的方式上发生了转变。

I think it's a good point, but I do see McDonald's, Starbucks, and some of those consumer retailers are taking steps right now to rightsize their businesses and offer $5 meals or $3 coffee. So I do think there's a shift in management in how they run these companies.

那是关于下调预测。对吧？所以当他们的收入下降，收入预测不得不削减时，他们必须裁员。这与创造更高效率是不同的。

That's about reduced forecast. Right? So when their revenue decline when their revenue forecast have to be cut, they have to cut headcount. That's different than creating more efficiency.

嗯，但他们也在关闭门店，削减那些效率低下的项目和业务。所以我认为所有行业都将迎来巨大的效率提升。这将是明年的主题。但是，我的意思是，这显然

Well, but they're also cutting stores, they're and cutting things and projects that are inefficient. So I just think there's gonna be massive efficiency in all sectors. That's gonna be the theme for the next year. But, I mean, it's obviously

但那意味着就业岗位减少和增长放缓。对吧？需要明确的是，关闭门店会导致增长减少。削减工作岗位是因为收入增长不够。所以这些是关于...

But that's that's a loss of jobs and a loss of growth. Right? So just to be clear, when you cut stores, you have less growth. When you cut jobs, that's because you don't have as much revenue growth. So those are about But

盈利可以

earnings can

上升。

go up.

对吧？它们可以得到支撑，但你仍然面临收缩。你知道，当前的一个挑战是，很多食品公司和零售公司一直在提高价格以维持盈利增长，但它们正遇到这个自然的拐点，消费者不再购买，你找到了这个临界点。不知道你们最近有没有去超市，但天哪，价格涨得太疯狂了，超市里所有东西的价格都上涨了50%到100%。这简直是

Right? They can be supported, but you're still facing contraction. And, you know, one of the challenges right now, a lot of food companies, a lot of retail companies have been raising prices to try and keep earnings going up, but they're hitting this natural inflection point where consumers no longer buy, where you find this tipping point. I don't know if you guys have been to the supermarket lately, but man, it is crazy expensive how how like, prices have gone up, like, 50 to a 100% on, everything at the supermarket. And this is, like

基本上不可能承受。

It's basically impossible.

我们我们还能应付，但对很大一部分人来说，这确实是个大问题，现在你必须精打细算地生活，减少开支。

We we could deal with it, but, like, a large percentage of people this is a big deal in terms of, like, now you have to budget your life and you spend less.

我和娜特在波托菲诺的时候，我们早上会去鱼市，为家人买鱼。价格贵得难以置信。我们总是想，如果人们想要选择健康、本地的饮食，这怎么可能实现呢？

Nat and I, when we're here in Portofino, we go in the morning to the fishmonger, and we'll buy, you know, fish for the family. It is unbelievably expensive. And, you know, we always think to ourselves, how is it possible that folks can actually choose to eat healthy and local If they want to,

几乎不可能。整条鱼是什么？告诉我们。

it's next to possible What was the whole fish? Tell us.

你知道，如果你想买本地捕捞的比目鱼，每公斤要48欧元。哇，真的很贵。

Know, like, if you if you wanna have, like, locally caught sole, it's, like, €48 a kilogram. Wow. And, like, it's expensive.

而且对所有朋友来说都很贵。

And it's expensive for all friends.

所以要养活我们这样的七口之家，你得花150到200美元。这是不可持续的，对大多数人来说不再合理，因为过去可能只要30或40美元。但弗里德伯格说得对，我们面临一个严重的问题，因为这些体系长期以来一直保持不变。

So to to feed a family of seven, which is what we are, you'll have to spend, you know, a 150, $200. It's not sustainable. It's not something that can that makes sense for enough people anymore because that probably used to be $40 or $30. But Friedberg is right. Like, we're in a real serious problem because it's it's like these systems have remained the way that they have been for a very long time.

虽然其他行业，比如科技行业，已经获得了惊人的效率，但问题是，这些其他行业支撑着普通人的日常生活。在无法真正降低成本和提高质量的情况下，我们就陷入了今天的境地。我认为这是不可持续的。

And while other industries, like the tech industry, have captured all these incredible efficiencies But the problem is that then these other industries are what supports everyday people's everyday lives. And in the absence of a way to actually reduce cost and improve quality, you end up where we are today. And I don't think that that's sustainable.

格拉伯，明年经济衰退的可能性更大还是不会衰退？你必须给出答案。

Graber, greater chance of a recession in the next year or not a recession? You have to give an answer.

是的。我认为经济衰退的可能性非常大。

Yeah. I think there's a great chance of a recession.

是的。经济衰退的可能性占多数。明白了。

Yeah. Majority chance of recession. Got it.

但我确实认为政府会出台计划来减轻影响，这意味着你可能会看到市场，尤其是股市继续上涨。好吧。关于一些政府计划和政府行动，这已经成为一种习得行为。就像巴甫洛夫的条件反射一样。就像我们一遇到经济问题，政府就会介入并花钱。

But I do think that there's gonna be government programs to mitigate the effects, meaning you could see the markets, the equity markets continue to rally Okay. On some of the government programs and government activity, which has become kind of like the learned behavior. It's like Pavlovian. It's like we we have a we have an economic problem, the government step the government steps in and spends money.

让我听听萨克斯的看法。

Let me get an answer from Sachs.

市场在经济衰退期间仍能上涨的原因在于利率被下调。我们已经看到，降息的预期现在已经大幅增加。市场开始定价今年将有100到150个基点的降息，而之前更像是25到50个基点。所以很明显，较低的利率会推高股价。因此，我认为这是你现在看到的上涨行情的主要驱动力，杰·卡尔，而不是效率提升的前景，因为我认为这些前景早已存在。

The reason why the markets could rally in the midst of a recession is because interest rates get cut. We've already seen that the expectations of rate cuts have now grown substantially. The markets are starting to price in a 100 to 150 basis points of rate cuts this year, where before it was more like 25 to 50 basis points. So obviously, lower interest rates make stocks go up. So I think that's the the main driver of the rally you're seeing right now, Jay Cal, not the prospects for increased efficiency because I think, you know, those prospects were already there.

那么你的主要预测是未来一年会衰退，还是不会衰退？

So are you majority case recession or or majority case not recession in the next year?

我预测经济衰退已经差不多三年了，因为我就是觉得，当你如此突然、如此猛烈地大幅提高利率时，经济衰退就会发生。所以，我想如果你非要我表态，我会说我认为会衰退。而且我会告诉你其中一个原因，其中一个原因是

I've been predicting recession for like three years now because I just think when you jack up interest rates so suddenly, so violently, you get recession. So I guess I if I if you pin me down, I'd say I recession. And I'll tell you one of the reasons one of the reasons why

有趣的是，我刚查了记录，萨克斯。你预测了过去五次衰退中的九次，其中有五次都预测对了。

Interestingly, I've just checked the notes, Sacks. You predicted five of the nine of the last five recessions.

我知道，我知道。而且你看，这还是我一直在预测的那场衰退。道理很简单。当你把利率从接近零提高到百分之五点五时，一切都会变得昂贵得多。

I know. I know. And look, it's the same recession that I've been predicting. It's very simple. When you jack up interest rates from near zero to five and a half percent, that makes everything much more expensive.

除非政府花钱，这一直是起抵消作用的因素，对吧？这也是为什么政府……顺便说一句，我对此有个理论。我认为这也是为什么我们有开放边境政策，或者说为什么现任政府推行开放边境政策，因为这也可以起到通货紧缩的作用，以抵消利率累积的影响，因为它

Unless the government spends money, which has been the counterbalance, right? And that's a lot of why governments and and by the way, have a theory on this. I think this is also why we have an open border policy or why the current administration has pushed an open border policy because that can also be deflationary to counteract the effect of the interest rate accrual because it because

它整体上降低了工资水平并填补了

it lowers wages overall and fills

低工资，它增加了劳动力，等等，它创造了更具竞争力的劳动力，但没有人被允许公开这么说，而我确实认为这是推行开放边境政策的主要动机之一。

Low wages, it increases the workforce, etcetera, it creates more competitive workforce, but no one's allowed to publicly say that and I do think that that's one of the primary motivating factors of having an open border policy.

嗯，人们一直在这么说。

Well, people have been saying it.

我想你刚才就说了。说得好。

I think you just did. It's well said.

如果你看过去四年的就业增长情况，美国本土出生人口的净新增就业为零。所有的就业增长都来自外国出生人口

If you look at job creation over the last four years, there's been no net new job creation for native born Americans. All the job creation has been foreign born

或者说因为美国本土出生人口的工资太高了——这才是根本问题，对吧？

or Because native born Americans have too That's high of a wage the fundamental problem, right?

我倒是没变得太富裕，同意

I'm not getting too affluent, agree.

我不认为工资太高

I don't think it's too high.

对。我并不是在站队争论，只是强调我认为这是推动该政策制定的动机之一

Right. And I'm not making an argument I'm one way or the just highlighting I think that this is one of the motivators for the policy.

我认为让他们的工资上涨会好得多。但无论如何，我们不要在这件事上政治化。杰森，关于经济衰退的问题——你看，我一直在预测同样的衰退，但现在可能终于要来的原因之一首先是很多投资者突然开始担心了。市场情绪出现了重大转变

I think it'd be a lot better to let their wages rise. But in any event, let's not get political on it. Just to the point about recession, Jason. I mean, look, I've been predicting the same recession, but I think one of the reasons why it might finally come now first of all, you've got a lot of investors are suddenly worried about it. There's been a big sentiment shift.

我认为另一点是我们还没有了解到所有坏消息

I think the other thing is I don't think we know all the bad news yet.

未知的未知。是的。

Unknown unknowns. Yeah.

嗯，我们中没有人像那样跟踪日元套利交易，我的意思是，我们可能听说过这件事，但直到过去这一周我们才真正积极思考它。问题是还有多少类似的事情存在？而且我也认为这届政府的模式一直是隐藏真相。他们多年来一直隐瞒拜登的衰老状况。

Well, none of us were tracking the yen carry trade like very I mean, it was something we may have heard of, but it's not like we were actively thinking about it until this past week. And the question is how many more things are out there like that? And I also think that the pattern with this administration has been to hide the ball. They hid Biden senility for years.

是的。不过别扯到政治。扎克，你刚说了我只是在说

Yeah. Not to get political though. Zach, you just said I'm just saying

扯到政治。别扯到政治。拜登拜登拜登拜登。是的。别扯到政治，但是拜登

to get political. Not to get political. Biden Biden Biden Biden. Yeah. Not to get political, but Biden

这只是一个事实。看。这个

This is just a fact. Look. The This

事实不是政治。

fact is not political.

我差点要给他颁奖，因为他说不要

I was about to give him an award for saying not to

我知道这有点政治化。把我们困住了。

get political I know. Holding us.

实际上我是在谈一个经济观点，你们可以判断我是否只是在搞党派之争，还是说我的观点有道理。我认为这届政府的一贯做法是隐藏真相。任何好消息他们都会报道。你觉得他们会报道所有坏消息吗？我不这么认为。我认为选举之后还会有更多坏消息爆出来，因为有太多动机让人们去隐瞒这些消息。

Making an economic point here, actually, and you guys can decide if I'm just being partisan or whether I have a good point here, which is, look, I think the MO of this administration has been to hide the ball. And any good news, they would have reported. Do you think that they're reporting all the bad news? I don't. I think there's more bad news that's gonna come out after the election because there's too many incentives for people to to hide it.

对于不了解的听众，我们正在讨论黑天鹅的概念。要成为黑天鹅事件，必须是你不知道的事情，而且必须产生巨大影响。日元交易不属于这类，因为即使不是头条新闻，人们也很清楚它的存在，而且它没有产生巨大影响。但可能存在潜在的黑天鹅。显然，近期能想到的黑天鹅就是次贷危机期间的情况。

And for people who don't know, we're talking about the concept of black swans. In order to have a black swan, it has to be something you're not aware of, and it has to be have a dramatic impact. The yen trade would not fall into this because people were well aware of it even if it wasn't front page news, and it didn't have a dramatic impact. But there could be black swan sitting there. Obviously, the black swan that you can think of recently would be in the great financial crisis, the subprime mortgage.

那确实是影响巨大，而且不为人知。互联网泡沫是已知的，但影响巨大。定义黑天鹅需要同时满足这两个条件。而且可能存在黑天鹅。对吧，萨克斯？

That truly was massively impactful, and it was not known. Dotcom was known and was massively impacted. You need both of those categories to define a black swan. And there could be black swans. Right, Sax?

你是这个意思吗？

Is what you're saying?

你说日元套利交易没有产生大影响，那是因为日本央行退缩了。如果他们继续推进，我们不知道会产生什么影响。

When you said that the yen carry trade didn't have a big impact, that's because the Bank of Japan backed off. So if they kept going with it, we don't know what the impact would have been.

没错。但他们没有继续。所以对于关注黑天鹅追踪器的人们，多了解一些总是好的。我们来谈谈苹果公司。肖莫普，我现在就给你应得的赞誉。

Correct. But it didn't. So just so people who are tracking the black swan tracker, just the more you know. Let's talk about Apple. Shmop, I'll give you your flowers right now.

它们正朝你来了。往你左边看。大束鲜花来了，因为你预测我其实没给你送花。

They're coming to you. Just look to your left. Here comes the huge bouquet because you predicted I didn't actually send you flowers.

他朝左边看了看。

He looked to his left.

但这是给你的虚拟鲜花。你预测得绝对正确——伯克希尔哈撒韦和巴菲特在他们的文件、信件和活动中越少谈论某项交易，就说明他们越不喜欢它了。据我了解，伯克希尔哈撒韦已经减持了他们最大持仓苹果公司的一半股份。有人说是因为他们对公司失去信心，也有人说是由于仓位过重。

But here's your virtual flowers. You predicted, I think, absolutely correctly that the less Berkshire Hathaway and Buffett talk in their documents and their letters and at their events about a trade, the more they're falling out of love with it. And I understand Berkshire Hathaway has sold half of their largest position, which is Apple. Some people are saying because they don't have faith in the company. Some people are saying because they're overweighted.

还有人认为是因为弗雷伯格（Freiburg）想要增加账面现金以进行其他收购。所以，查马斯，你或许可以开始庆祝胜利了，然后我觉得弗雷伯格对此进行了深入分析和详细研究。

Other people saying because they, Freiburg, want to get more cash on the books to make other acquisitions. So, Chamath, you're maybe just take your victory lap, and then we'll I think Freiburg double clicked on this and did a deep dive.

我没什么可多说的。我觉得这在他们信件中是个趋势——当他在信里不再提及某家公司时，就是因为他在减持。

I don't have much to say. I mean, I think it's been a trend in their letters when he stops mentioning a company in his letter. It's because he's selling.

这真是篇绝佳佳作。

It's a great great read.

就是这样。

There it is.

是的。这就是当时发生的情况。

Yeah. And that's what happened here.

好的。那么Freebark，请你带我们过一遍这个情况。

Okay. So Freebark, take us through this.

嗯，看起来从年初开始，他们已经卖出了所持苹果股票的55%。如果你看年底的情况，尼克，如果你能调出这张饼图，这是伯克希尔在其非控股企业中的股票持仓情况，也就是他们不完全拥有的企业。当时他们投资组合的50%是苹果股票，价值1740亿美元。我们显然看到苹果股价在几天前达到了历史最高点，但随后有所回落，因为有报道称自年初以来，伯克希尔已经减持了这个头寸的55%。所以有些人认为他们对公司战略和竞争格局有自己的看法。

Well, so it looks like since the start of the year, they've sold 55% of their holdings in Apple. And if you look at the end of the year, Nick, if you could pull up this image with the pie chart, this is what Berkshire's stock holdings were in their non majority owned businesses, so businesses that they don't own the business outright. And 50% of their portfolio was in Apple at a $174,000,000,000. We obviously saw Apple's stock price peak, highest level ever just a few days ago, but it has since come down as it was reported that since the start of the year now, Berkshire has sold 55% of this position. So some people are arguing that they've got a point of view on the company strategy and competitive kind of landscape.

有些人认为估值倍数已经太高了，市盈率接近30倍。自2016年伯克希尔买入该股以来，股价已经上涨了900%。

Some folks have argued that the valuation multiple has gotten too high, trading at nearly 30 times earnings. The stock has risen 900% since Berkshire bought the stock in 2016.

九倍收益。干得漂亮。

Nine bagger. Nicely done.

是的。也有人认为投资组合占比太高了，如你所见年初时超过了50%。但是，你知道，我会提供一些反方观点。沃伦·巴菲特在评价他挑选的股票时，并不太分析公司战略。他经常发现并大谈那些能创造出色回报的优秀管理者，并且会长期坚持投资他们。

Yeah. And some people would argue that the percent of the portfolio is too high at at over 50% as you can see here at the start of the year. But, you know, I'll kind of provide some of the counter arguments. You know, Warren Buffett does not do much analysis on corporate strategy when he provides reviews of the stocks that he's picked. He often finds and talks a lot about great managers that generate great returns, and he sticks with them.

有时候他会坚持投资他们很多很多年。这家公司的管理层没有变化。自他投资以来，现金投入和现金回报的收益状况只会越来越好。他们正在产生更多现金流，提供更多股息。

And he sticks with them sometimes for many, many decades. The management in this company has not changed. The return profile on cash invested and cash returned has only improved since he put money in. They're generating more cash flow. They're offering more dividends.

他们正在进行更多股票回购，而且他很乐意集中投资。多年来，他对单一公司下大注，有时甚至直接买下整个公司，比如1996年收购GEICO。他总是强调要找到由优秀管理者经营的公司，拥有高利润率的优质产品和持久的护城河，强大的品牌价值。在我看来，苹果与其投资组合中其他一些大型持股的区别在于，许多其他业务是受监管的垄断企业。比如BNSF铁路公司受联邦铁路管理局监管。

They're doing more stock buybacks, and he's happy to be concentrated. Over the years, he's made large bets on single companies to the point that sometimes he just outright buys the entire company like he did with GEICO in 1996. He always talks a lot about finding a company that is run by great managers, that has a premium product with a nice high margin and a durable moat, strong brand value. As I look at kind of what's really gone on here, it feels to me like the difference between Apple and some of the other big holdings in its portfolio is that many of those other businesses are regulated monopolies. So BNSF Railway is regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration.

伯克希尔能源公司（拥有中美能源）是一家受监管的公用事业公司。他们向消费者收取的价格由政府设定。因此他们拥有一个锁定的市场，价格是固定的，分销渠道也是固定的。

Berkshire Energy, which owns MidAmerican, is a regulated utility. The prices that they charge consumers are set by the government. So they have a market that's locked in. The prices are set. They have locked in distribution.

他们的公用事业价值是锁定的。保险业务也是如此。GEICO的费率由州监管机构批准并有效设定。伯克希尔的护城河在于他们拥有最大的资本基础，以及这台不断产生现金的机器，而费率是由政府公开设定的。然而，苹果不受监管，而且很明显，苹果正面临监管机构对其业务的深远且严重的财务影响。

They have locked in utility value. And the same is true in the insurance business. GEICO's rates are approved and set effectively by state regulators. Berkshire has a moat because they've got the largest capital base and they've got this machine that just keeps generating cash and the rates are publicly set by government. Apple, however, is not regulated and it is very clear that Apple is facing very deep and severe financial impact from the regulatory authorities that are overseeing the business.

所以如果你看看谷歌的信托案

So if you look at the Google trust

稍等一下。

deal in a sec.

是的。那里存在真正的监管风险，因为谷歌每年向苹果支付200亿美元作为默认搜索引擎。苹果与中国的关系也非常深厚。他们有很多制造在中国完成，并且向中国销售大量产品。因此，随着监管机构开始更严格地审查公司与中国的关系（正如他们所说），这对苹果来说是一个真正的风险。

Yeah. There's a real regulatory risk there because Google's paying Apple $20,000,000,000 a year to be the default search engine. Apple also has a very deep relationship with China. They have a lot of manufacturing being done in China and they sell a lot of product into China. So as regulators start to take a harder look as they said they're going to at companies relationships with China, that's a real risk to Apple.

广告、用户追踪，以及向消费者收取的订阅费用，最重要的是，我们多次讨论过苹果在其App Store上收取的30%佣金，以及监管机构现在如何介入并审查此事。因此，由于这项业务还不是受监管的垄断，它在许多意义上可能是一种垄断。但它尚未受到监管，这种转变可能对苹果造成财务上的痛苦。一旦他们度过这个阶段，它就会开始更像一个大型的伯克希尔式业务。所以，这就是我对苹果现状的总结性看法。

Advertising, tracking users, and then the subscription fees that are charged to consumers, and most importantly, we've talked a lot about the 30% vig that Apple takes on their App Store and how regulators are now stepping in and take a look at this. So because this business is not yet a regulated monopoly, it may be a monopoly in many senses of the word. It's not regulated yet, and that transition could be financially painful for Apple. Once they get to the other side, it starts to look a lot more like a large scale Berkshire type business. So that that's my kinda summary take on what's going on with Apple.

是的。

Yeah.

不，我认为这相当高明。萨克斯，你对伯克希尔哈撒韦现金大幅增加以及其背后想法的看法是什么？沃伦·巴菲特在想什么？是因为他对苹果超配了，还是在积累现金因为经济衰退即将来临，想低价买入资产？

No. I think it's pretty deft. Saxe, your thoughts on this massive increase in cash and what Berkshire Hathaway is thinking. What is Warren Buffett thinking here? Is it this became he became overweight Apple or that he's building up cash because a recession's coming and wants to buy things on the cheap?

嗯，或者如弗里德伯格所说，是监管风险。

Well Or regulation to Freiburg's point.

当周日、周一全球市场抛售时，很多人在网上分享这张图表，指出巴菲特坐拥巨额现金储备，这是他迄今为止最大的现金储备。随后市场出现复苏，所以人们不再过多讨论这一点。但确实有理由认为巴菲特正在这里积累战争资金，他的布局略显防御性。你可以看到，在2021、2022年左右，现金储备下降是因为他开始进行一系列投资。现在现金储备又非常高，因此逻辑上可以推断他认为目前公开股票的风险回报并不理想，他再次采取了更为避险的姿态。

When we had this global sell off on Sunday, Monday, a lot of people were sharing this chart online and pointing out that Buffett was sitting on this gigantic cash pile, by far the biggest cash pile that he's ever sat on. We then had a market recovery, so people aren't really talking about this. But it does stand to reason that Buffett is building up a a war chest here, and he's somewhat defensively positioned. You can see that, you know, was it like twenty twenty one twenty two, the cash pile went down because he started making a bunch of investments. Now the cash pile's really high, so it seems logical to infer that he thinks that the risk reward right now is is not great on public equities, and he is again, he's just a little bit more risk off.

查马斯，你对弗里德伯格提出的监管风险论点怎么看？

What do you think of the regulatory risk argument Friedberg is floating here, Chamath?

我认为大卫是对的，弗里德伯格也是对的，中国因素可能影响了这一决策，因为他同时也卖出了大量比亚迪股票，我记得他们从2008年2月就持有这家公司。你知道，那是一家中国电动汽车公司。所以这可能也起到了一定作用。老实说，我不确定。

I think that David is right that Friedberg is right that the China thing could have impacted it, but because he also sold a lot of BYD, which they've owned since 02/2008, I think. So, you know, that's a Chinese EV company. And so it could be just that that could have played a part. To be honest, I don't know.

所以你的意思是，中国依赖性。这两者都与中国有依赖关系，所以他可能觉得整体投资组合对中国依赖过高了。

So what you're saying, China dependency. Both of those have a China dependency, so he maybe felt the overall portfolio had too much China dependency.

也许吧。是的。我能接受这个观点。这看起来，嗯，相当合理。不过我认为要记住的是，这些决定，我认为，至少已经酝酿了好几个季度了。

Maybe. Yeah. I could buy that. That seems, like, reasonably logical. I think the thing to remember, though, is that these decisions, I think, have been stewing for at least a couple quarters.

记住，就像，你知道，他写的那封信不是昨天写的。对吧？那是几个月前就开始起草的。这些决定甚至更早就做出了。所以我认为这些决定是很早之前就定下的。

Remember, like, you know, that letter that he writes was not written yesterday. Right? That was being drafted months and months ago. These decisions were made or even longer. So I think these decisions were made a while back.

如果我们想玩点阴谋论的话，另一个原因是，就像，你知道，在查理·芒格去世后，也许他开始做的是整合投资组合，以便在巴菲特去世时能优雅地过渡给格雷格·阿贝尔。所以这可能是另一个

Another reason if we're gonna play kind of conspiracy theorist is, like, you know, after the death of Charlie Munger, maybe what he's starting to do is consolidate the book so that it can transition elegantly to Greg Gable when Buffett passes away. And so that could be another

让我稍微分析一下。所以当你说这个时，你的意思是他希望以更低的风险交接。所以对单一股票的依赖会是风险。对中国的依赖会是风险。他希望让它非常清晰，这样交接会更顺利。

Let me unpack for second. So when you say that, you're saying he he wants to hand it off with less risk in it. So dependency on one stock would be risk. A dependency on China would be risk. He wants make it really clean so the handoff is smoother.

他希望交接一个非常有条理的投资组合。

He wants to hand off a very organized book.

或者也许他和阿贝尔——他和格雷格·阿贝尔已经讨论过他们未来五到十年想要的风险投资组合类型，这反映了与新任CEO的讨论。可能有各种各样的原因。我真的不知道。我只是认为苹果，回到弗里德伯格的核心论点，我同意他的许多总体观点。我不确定它们影响了伯克希尔的策略，但苹果确实有点偏离方向。

Or maybe he and Abel he and Greg Abel have already talked about the kind of risk book that they want over these next five to ten years, and it reflects a a discussion about what the incoming CEO wants. It could so there there could be all kinds of reasons why. I don't I don't really know. I just think that Apple, just back to Friedberg's core thesis, I agree with many of his general points. I'm not sure that they affected the Berkshire strategy, but Apple is sort of a little bit wayward.

这是一家拥有有效且不受监管的垄断或双头垄断地位的公司，却不知道该怎么办。我认为这是该公司最大的问题。这与巴菲特现在卖出、一年后卖出或一年前没有卖出是独立的。

It is a company with an effective and unregulated monopoly or duopoly that doesn't really know what to do. And I think that that's the biggest problem with that company. And that's independent of Buffett selling now or selling a year from now or having not sold a year before.

一旦受到监管，你就知道价格是多少，知道你能做什么，知道你能去哪里，所有风险都消除了。他拥有的所有其他垄断企业的特点就是政府在其中扮演角色，因此这是一个高度可预测的业务。

Once you're regulated, you know what the prices are, you know what you can do, you know where you can go, and all that risk is off the table. That's what is a feature of all of those other monopolies he owns is that the government has a role in it, so it's a highly predictable business.

顺便说一句，你提到了谷歌的事情，但这显然不在他的考量范围内。我认为他只是非常幸运。但如果你现在持有苹果股票，我认为你必须考虑谷歌每年支付给你的200亿美元——这部分收入的利润率高达99%——如果针对谷歌的反垄断裁决成立，你可能需要重新评估失去这200亿美元后苹果的价值。

By the way, and you mentioned the Google thing, but this clearly was not part of his calculus. I think he just got very lucky. But if you're holding Apple today, I think you have to take the $20,000,000,000 that Google pays you every year, which comes in at 99% margin, and you should probably sensitize the value of Apple for not having that 20,000,000,000 if this antitrust ruling against Google stands.

是的。

Yeah.

仅此一项可能就价值高达5000亿至1万亿美元，具体取决于你给这200亿赋予多少倍乘数。

That alone could be worth upwards of half a trillion to a trillion dollars depending on what multiple you wanna put on that 20.

嗯，我的意思是，疯狂的是苹果股价仍高达2.14美元，比今年年初的1.85美元高出12%。该股刚从每股2.30美元的历史高点回落，所以只是略低于历史最高点。

Well, I mean, what what's crazy is the Apple Apple is still up to $2.14, which is 12% higher than it was at the start of this year at $1.85. The stock is just coming off of its all time highs at $2.30 a share, so it's just barely off the all time highs.

我的意思是，这对苹果来说都是巨额现金储备。苹果现在也有超过1000亿美元的现金。沃伦·巴菲特拥有近3000亿美元。配置者想要进行交易，显然他有更好的交易选择——无论是用这3000亿获得5%的收益，还是可能他想收购些什么。那是另一种可能性。

I mean, this is just an an extraordinary amount of cash to be held by both Apple. Apple's, you know, also has over 100,000,000,000 in cash now. Warren Buffett has close to 300,000,000,000. Allocators want to make trades, and they got a better obviously, he's got a better trade, I think, he can make on this, whether that's the 5% he's gonna get on the 300,000,000,000, or maybe there's something he wants to buy. That's another possibility.

总结得非常精彩。现在让我们转向联邦法官裁定谷歌在搜索和广告领域存在非法垄断的新闻。这是重大消息，可能是科技行业几年来最大的新闻。周一，一名法官裁定谷歌通过非法手段维持其在线搜索垄断地位。

So great job wrapping this all up. And let's pivot to the federal judge that ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly in search and advertising. This is huge news. Perhaps this is the biggest news in the tech industry for a couple years. On Monday, a judge ruled that Google had acted illegally to maintain its monopoly in online search.

如果你还记得，这是2020年由司法部在特朗普政府时期提起的诉讼。这份277页的裁决认定谷歌通过向苹果、三星等第三方平台支付数十亿美元成为其默认搜索引擎，从而滥用了其搜索业务的垄断地位。所以问题不仅在于拥有垄断地位，更在于如何维持垄断。这被称为流量获取成本（TAC），我们在这里已经讨论过很多次了。

If you remember, this was filed under the Trump administration in 2020 by the DOG. The 277 page ruling agrees that Google abused its search business monopoly by paying billions of dollars to third party platforms like Apple and Samsung in order to be their default search engine. So it's not just that you have the monopoly, it's how you maintain the monopoly. This is called TAC, traffic acquisition cost. We've talked about it here many times.

根据诉讼，谷歌处理了约90%的网络搜索。我想我们都知道这一点，但公司对此声称存在争议。该裁决尚未包含对谷歌行为的补救措施，他们将在后续裁决中决定。

According to the suit, Google conducts around 90% of web searches. I think we all know that. Companies disputing that claim. The ruling doesn't contain remedies yet for Google's behavior. They're gonna decide that in a subsequent ruling.

显然，谷歌会对此进行抗争。这可能会导致商业行为的改变，例如他们不能再支付给火狐、三星、苹果等成为默认搜索引擎。这将带来许多有趣的可能性。

Obviously, Google is going to fight this. It could result in a change in business practices, I. E. They cannot pay Firefox, Samsung, Apple to be the default search engine anymore. That will lead to many interesting possibilities.

查马斯和我在X上讨论过这些。所以这是重大新闻，我认为这对搜索引擎市场将是件好事。根据我十多年前运营人工搜索引擎Mahalo时的经历，当我把它发给史蒂夫·乔布斯时，他在深夜打开并开始使用。当时有很多关于苹果想进入搜索业务的评论或传言，因为他们与谷歌关系紧张。

Chamath and I were discussing them on X. And so this is huge news. This is gonna be great, I think, for the search engine market. I know Apple, from my time doing Mahalo, a human powered search engine over ten years ago, when I sent it to Steve Jobs, he opened it up in the middle of the night and started playing with it. And there were many reviews of or many rumors of Apple wanting to be in the search business because they had a contentious relationship with Google.

显然，当谷歌用Android竞争时，这让史蒂夫·乔布斯非常不满。而且，谷歌还创建了Chrome，与Safari竞争。我认为，特里莫斯，苹果在失去这笔2030亿美元的TAC交易后，完全有可能通过DuckDuckGo启动自己的搜索引擎。Brave拥有出色的搜索引擎和搜索API，而且他们显然已经有了爬虫。

Obviously, when Google competed with Android, that upset Steve Jobs greatly. And, also, Google created Chrome, which also Safari and Chrome competing with each other. It's not out of the question, I think, Tremoth, that you could see Apple, when they lose this $2,030,000,000,000 dollar deal for TAC, to start their own search engine by DuckDuckGo. Brave has an amazing search engine and a search API. And they've obviously they've got a crawler.

所以人们不知道的是，苹果其实有自己的爬虫。我的预测是苹果会收购一个搜索引擎，独立发展并扩展其广告网络，就像亚马逊、优步和其他公司所做的那样。你对此有什么看法？我们未来会看到什么？这项裁决会成立吗？天啊。

So people don't know this, but Apple has a crawler. My prediction is Apple buys a search engine, and they go it alone and expand their advertising network like Amazon, Uber, and other companies have. What's your take on this and what we're gonna see in the future? Will this ruling stand up? Gosh.

那么下游市场会产生哪些影响？

And then what are the downstream market impacts?

我认为谷歌这件事是自二月份微软与司法部达成和解以来科技领域发生的最重要的事件？

I think that this Google thing is the most important thing that's happened in tech since the Microsoft DOJ decision in February?

互联网浏览器。是的。

Internet Explorer. Yeah.

没错。因为如果你回顾二月份的那份和解协议，它实质上在十多年间束缚住了这家极具威胁的公司，而与此同时各种创新层出不穷。所以他们错过了两大浪潮，对吧？微软基本上错过了社交网络，然后又因为那份和解协议很大程度上错过了移动互联网。

Yeah. Because if you if you go back to that consent decree in February, it essentially handcuffed this incredibly foreboding company for more than a decade while all kinds of innovations happened. So they missed out on two huge waves. Right? Microsoft essentially missed out on social, and then they missed out on mobile largely as a result of that consent decree.

后来他们才得以赶上并拥抱SaaS和云计算。了不起，真了不起。但这里存在一个小概率结果，本质上就是一份和解协议，让谷歌在若干年内受到束缚，从而催生几波创新浪潮，让那些原本可能无法成功的新公司得以崛起。一个很好的例子就是你开始看到的AI驱动的搜索体验，无论是来自OpenAI、Perplexity还是其他一些公司。

And then they were able to catch up and embrace SaaS and the cloud. Amazing. Amazing. But there is this small o outcome here, which is essentially a consent decree where Google gets handcuffed for some number of years, and it creates a couple of big waves of innovation of new companies that can succeed that may not have otherwise been able to succeed in the absence of such a consent decree. And a good example of this would be the AI powered search experiences that you're starting to see, whether it's from OpenAI or Perplexity or a few of these other folks.

不过，大概率结果更像是回溯到美国电话电报公司那种情况，即公司被拆分。我认为这种可能性极低。所以我觉得大概率结果基本上可以排除。我认为更可能是一个较低程度的结果。但关键在于，法官将在这两种结果之间掌握分配权。

The big o outcome, though, is more if you go back to the Ma Bell kind of thing where the company gets broken up. I think that the odds of that are extremely unlikely. So I think the big o outcome is probably something that you can pretty safely take off the table. I think it's gonna be a little low outcome. But the point is that there's a distribution here between these two things that this judge will be in control of.

我认为——再次强调，这只是我的猜测——无论这里发生什么，民主党和共和党都会真正支持。这未必是因为他们和谷歌有过节。我觉得他们和其他公司的过节比和谷歌更多。但我认为这开始为以非常有意义和有效的方式制约大型科技公司定下基调，这对华盛顿具有重要的影响。

And I think that again again, I'm just guessing. I think both the Democrats and the Republicans will really support whatever happens here. And and that's necessarily because I don't think that's necessarily because they have a bone to pick with Google. I think that, you know, they have bones to pick with other companies more than Google. But I think that it it starts to set the tone for being able to check big tech in a very meaningful and productive way, and I think that that has important ramifications for Washington.

好吧，Sacks。不是要政治化，但这是政府在阻止美国企业，所以不可能不涉及政治。你怎么看？未来我们会看到什么？更多监管、更多这样的裁决、轻微处罚、还是拆分？在你看来，这只是开始，还是对大型科技公司的监管已经达到顶峰？

Okay, Sacks. Not to make it political, but this is the government stopping corporate America, so it can't not be political. What's your take here, and what will we see in the future? More regulation, more rulings like this, slap on the wrist, breakup. Is this more to come, or this is peak regulation in your mind of big tech?

嗯，我认为这是个正确的决定。我的意思是，谷歌显然是一个垄断企业。实际上，它至少是两三个垄断体的集合。他们在搜索领域垄断，在广告领域垄断，至少在视频领域通过YouTube占据主导地位。

Well, I I think this is a good decision. I mean, Google clearly is a monopoly. In fact, it's at least two or three monopolies. They have a monopoly in search. They have a monopoly in advertising, and they at least have a dominant position in video with YouTube.

我认为如果政府拆分这家公司会很好。我的意思是，它至少应该被拆分成三到四家公司。搜索应该成为独立公司，广告业务应该独立，YouTube应该被剥离出来。至于G Suite应该成为独立公司还是并入搜索业务，我...我不确定。

And I think that it would be great if the government broke up this company. I mean, it should be it should be at least three or four companies. I mean, should be search should be its own company, advertising should be its own company, YouTube should be spun out. And then I don't know if G Suite should be a separate company or should get lumped in with search. I I I don't know.

但我认为至少应该拆分成三到四家公司。而且我认为共和党人会支持这个做法，因为坦白说，谷歌对民主构成威胁。如果你在谷歌搜索任何与选举相关的内容，结果明显带有严重偏见。

But I think there should be at least three or four companies. And I think Republicans will be on board with that because frankly, Google's a threat to democracy. If you go to Google and search for search results of anything related to the election, it is clearly so biased.

具体说明一下。

Explain that.

没错。举个例子。

Yeah. Give an example.

如果你

If you

想获取关于卡玛拉·哈里斯的最新信息，直接搜索唐纳德·特朗普就行。我的意思是，对比下搜索结果。我亲自做过测试并把结果发到了网上。如果你搜索特朗普，会看到一堆关于他的负面文章，同时会看到关于哈里斯的正面报道。反过来，如果搜索卡玛拉·哈里斯，你会看到关于她的正面文章，就好像特朗普不存在一样。

wanna get the latest info on Kamala Harris, just search for Donald Trump. I mean, compare the search results. And I've done this and I've posted the results online. If you search for Trump, you'll get a bunch of negative articles on Trump and you'll get positive articles about Harris. And then conversely, if you search for Kamala Harris, you'll get positive articles about her and it's like Trump doesn't exist.

很明显他们在这里偏袒自己支持的候选人，因为他们的捐款中有约90%都表明了这一点。

It's clearly they have put their thumb on the scale here in favor of the candidate they prefer as 90 something percent of their donations indicate.

这是一个实时搜索。我刚搜索了唐纳德·特朗普。如你所见，第一个出现的是关于特朗普和哈里斯的哈里斯报道。谷歌实际上已经解决了这个问题。我认为问题实际上更多在于媒体的偏见，而不是算法的偏见。

Here's a real time search. I just did Donald Trump. As you can see, the first one that came up was a Harris story about Trump and Harris. Google has actually addressed this issue. The issue is actually, I think, I'll take a little bit of other side of it, not bias in the algorithm, but bias in media.

绝大多数媒体都是左倾的，与左派相比，共和党右倾媒体的数量非常少，这很明显。所以当你搜索唐纳德·特朗普时，前三个选择都是左倾的：《纽约时报》左倾，《华盛顿邮报》左倾，《新闻周刊》左倾，CNN左倾，《每日野兽》超级左倾。五个中有五个都是左倾的。真正的问题在于没有足够多的共和党或右倾媒体来平衡这种情况。

The overwhelming majority of media is left leaning, and there's a very small amount of Republican right leaning media when compared to the left, obviously. And so when you do a search for Donald Trump, you know, you've got the first three choices. New York Times left leaning, Washington Post left leaning, Newsweek left leaning, CNN left leaning, Daily Bee's super left leaning. Five of five are left leaning. That really is the issue is that there isn't enough GOP or right leaning media to actually make this work.

这至少是我的看法。你的看法呢？嗯，他们的解释是，

That's at least my take on it. What's your take? That's Well, their explanation,

顺便说一下。好吧。行。但问题是 是的。是那样 没错。

by way. Okay. Fine. But the problem Yeah. Is that Yeah.

他们在给他们想加权的出版物加权。为什么《每日野兽》像是选举方面的权威？在选举问题上，他们是最党派化、最荒谬、最不可信的出版物，那为什么他们能排在前四？我是说，为什么福克斯新闻不在里面？为什么《纽约邮报》不在里面？

They're waiting the publications they wanna wait. Why is Daily Beast like some authority on the election? They're the most partisan, ridiculous, untrustworthy publication when it comes to the election, so why should they be top four? I mean, why isn't Fox News in there? Why isn't New York Post in there?

为什么Substack不在里面？Substack上有很多优秀的出版物。所以他们非常有选择性地挑选那些，你说得对，完全偏向民主党的出版物。这样他们反映的是主流媒体的偏见，但他们在展示哪些媒体方面非常挑剔。即便如此 这里

Why isn't Substack in there? There's a lot of great publications on Substack. So they are very selectively choosing the publications who, you're right, are in the tank for the Democrats. So that they are reflecting the bias of the mainstream media, but they are being very selective about what media they show. And even so Here's

卡玛拉·哈里斯。让我给你看下统计数据。这里，等一下。卡玛拉·哈里斯，我刚搜索了一下。

Kamala Harris. And let me just give you the statistics here. Here. Hold on. Kamala Harris, I just did a search.

前五个是《纽约时报》、NBC、《国会山报》、CNN。《国会山报》是右派还是左派？

First five, New York Times, NBC, The Hill, CNN. Is the Hill right or left?

我不知道。他们是左派。

I don't know. They're left.

你会

Would you

说是左派吗？是左派。对，他们是左派。然后是《福布斯》，我觉得应该算是右派。

say sex? It's left. Yeah. They're left. And then Forbes, which I think would be considered right.

然后是福克斯，显然是右派。所以，我的意思是，这只是新闻来源的比例问题。

And then Fox, obviously, right. So, I mean, it's just the percentage of news sources here.

是的。《卫报》通常被列为右派，所以又多了两个。

Yeah. The Guardians often rank right, so there's another two.

是的。所以这将是

Yeah. So it would be

就像三个

like three of

八我在这里

eight I in this

想把你在屏幕上这个

put want you on the screen this

是的，继续吧。你可以做到的。

Yeah, go ahead. You can do it.

我我发了一些收据的推文。请点击截图，这样我可以并排展示给你看，你就会明白我在说什么。好的。我搜索唐纳德·特朗普。我得到了什么？

I I tweeted some receipts. Please click on the screenshot so I can show you the side by side you'll see what I'm talking about. Okay. I search for Donald Trump. What do I get?

关于哈里斯的新闻，我第一次是在手机上做的，所以这是移动端的。嗯。这些文章基本上都是关于哈里斯批评特朗普的。明白吗？然后第二个轮播是关于2025项目主管下台的消息，这与特朗普关系不大，但却是民主党对特朗普的主要攻击路线。

News about Harris, the first I did this on my phone, so this is mobile. Mhmm. The articles are all basically about Harris criticizing Trump. Okay? Then the second carousel is about the Project twenty twenty five director stepping down, which is pretty tangential to Trump, but is a major Democratic line of attack on Trump.

所以整个事情似乎被操纵来支持民主党全国委员会对特朗普的观点。同样的情况。你搜索唐纳德·特朗普的最新新闻，结果也一样。有个关于特朗普侄子的奇怪报道。

So this whole thing seems rigged to support the DNC point of view on Trump. Same thing. You search Donald Trump latest news. Same thing. There's some weird story about Donald Trump's nephew.

我甚至都不知道有这个人，但他们却把它提升为一个重要新闻。再次强调，第一个轮播全是关于哈里斯的。现在请继续。

I didn't even know he about this person, but somehow they're elevating it to be a major story. And again, the first carousel is all about Harris. Now keep going, please.

好的，女士。

Yes, ma'am.

好的。现在我们看看卡玛拉·哈里斯。头条新闻，全是哈里斯。没有关于特朗普的新闻。

Okay. Now we look at Kamala Harris. Top stories, just Harris. No news about Trump.

明白了。

Got it.

下一个。同样的情况。好的。所以重点是，当你搜索特朗普时，你得到的是关于哈里斯的新闻和对特朗普的批评。当你搜索哈里斯时，你得到的是关于哈里斯的正面新闻。

The next one. Same thing. Okay. So the point is that when you search for Trump, you get news about Harris and criticism of Trump. When you search for Harris, you get positive news about Harris.

你不可能告诉我这是公平的，或者这是一个未被篡改的算法的结果。这很明显是被编程过的。我的意思是，你会得到不同的

There's no way you can tell me that this is fair or this is a result of an algorithm that hasn't been tampered with. This is very clearly programmed. I mean, you get different

旋转木马取决于

carousels depending

你搜索的是哪位候选人。

on which candidate you search for.

我要站在完全相反的立场，但是，弗赖伯格，我想给你一个机会，因为你在谷歌工作过。我认为你对算法很了解。根据你对算法的了解，有什么技术逻辑上说得通的解释吗？然后我会提出我的立场。接着，特拉马斯，你

I am gonna take the complete other side of this, but, Freiberg, I wanna give you a chance because you worked at Google. I think you know a lot about the algorithm. What is there an explanation for this that makes technical logical sense given what you know about the algorithm? And then I'll give my position. Then, Tramath, you

可以。在显示新闻来源排名方面，几乎没有什么编辑化操作。新闻来源的排名通常由某种排名算法设定。该算法通常围绕点击率、浏览量、网站受欢迎程度、访问者数量等因素。所以排序是由其他指标驱动的。例如，如果NBC、CNN、福克斯新闻都比某些小型出版物的排名更高。

can There's very little kind of editorialization going on with respect to showing the rankings of the new sources. The ranking of the new sources is typically set by some ranking algorithm. The algorithm is usually around click throughs, views, popularity of the sites, how many visitors there are. So there are other metrics that drive the order. So for example, if NBC, CNN, Fox News all have kind of higher rankings than some smaller publication.

它们最终会排在更前面，因为它们有更高的，可以称之为质量得分。还有关于人们点击后返回的频率的衡量标准，即跳出率。所以如果他们点击一篇文章后又返回，这实际上可能会降低排名，而如果他们点击后停留在网站上则不会。因此排名算法涉及很多因素。可能让人不满的是这方面缺乏透明度。

They're gonna end up higher in the the ranking out there because they have a higher, call it, quality score. There's also measures on how often people click through and come back, the bounce back rate. So if they click through an article and then come back, that can actually reduce the ranking versus if they click through and stay on the site. So there's a lot of factors that go into the ranking algorithm. The thing that probably upsets people is that there isn't any transparency into this.

所以人们无法理解这些东西是如何排名、如何设定的，这很可能是一个很好的指导和反馈，表明应该更加透明和开放。我并不是在刻意为任何人的产品或行为辩护。我只是说，人们确实缺乏对为什么显示这个而不是那个的理解。我还要说，萨克斯，很可能或者可能有这样的情况：发布支持哈里斯的文章的网站比发布支持特朗普的文章的网站多得多，这可能会开始让算法超重，或者让你看到的排名超重。所以这可能也在起作用，即你实际看到的是普遍新闻媒体偏见，而不是谷歌偏见。

So there's no understanding on how these things are ranked, how they're set, and it's probably very good guidance and feedback that there should be more transparency and openness. And I'm not necessarily trying to defend anyone's product or behavior. I'm just saying that there's a certainly a lack of understanding on why one thing is being shown versus another. I'll also say Saxe, is probably the case or there might be the case that there's many more sites potentially putting out pro Harris articles, and there are putting out pro Trump articles, which can start to overweight the the algorithm as you know or overweight the rankings that are showing up. So that might also be feeding into this that that the general news media bias is what you're actually seeing versus a Google bias.

正确。

Correct.

我 我不

I I don't

相信那一点。让我找查马斯等一下。让我找查马斯介入这个问题，然后我会给出我的...抱歉。关于算法的问题。我同意那一点。

believe that. Let me get Chamath hold on. Let me get Chamath involved here on this issue, and then I'll give my I'm sorry. Do about the algorithm. I agree with that.

100%的媒体是

A 100% of media is

总是被视为一个黑盒子。

always considered a black box.

去看看

Go look

谷歌。100%正如我解释的那样。是的。独立记者的数量为什么？在左倾出版物中，比例大约是30比1，而在像福克斯新闻这样的地方，主要是...我们讨论过这个，主要是观点性的。

at Google. 100% as I explained. Yeah. The the number of independent journalists Why? In left leaning publications is, like, 30 to one at places like Fox News, which is largely So we talked about this quieter largely opinion.

共和党人需要在记者方面进行更多投资。有这么多更多的

There needs to be more investment in journalists by Republicans. Are so many more

自由派记者，而且外面还有那么多自由派媒体机构。

liberal journalists, and there's so many more liberal media outlets out there.

二十比一。

20 to one.

至少是很大的比例。是的。可能确实是二十比一。是的。

A big At least. Yeah. It's probably 20 to Yeah.

是的。当然，我理解主流媒体无可救药地带有偏见。请记住你说过这话，等我们讨论的时候不要反悔。

Yeah. Of course, I understand that mainstream media is hopelessly biased. Please remember you said that when we discuss it No.

不。是将来时。是数量上绝对压制。他没有说偏见。没说萨克，我必须在这里打断你。

No. In the future. Hopelessly outnumbering. He didn't say bias. Didn't say Sax, I gotta stop you there.